We can argue the vaccine debate back and forth all day long but the basic facts are this:

There's evidence vaccines aren't safe and that some kids do have significant side effects, and some seem to be worse than others.
Governments know this, but they also believe the benefits of vaccines wholly outweigh the risks.

They know that forcing you to vaccinate is like the doctor taking a .44 magnum from his drawer instead of a syringe, placing a bullet in the chamber and spinning the cylinder, but they play down the risks 'in the interest of the greater good'.

It's essentially propaganda, or an advertising campaign, where if anyone does not 'believe' as they are 'told to believe' then they are a heretic; and a genuine danger to others.
This creates a pretext for outlawing free speech where some views shouldn't be allowed lest they may harm the other dumbed-down snowflakes.

Anti-vaxxers (or at least some of them) do have a fair argument.
And the establishment will always try to highlight the crazy voices to discredit that rational argument:

- They aren't 100% safe or effective in the way they're claimed to be, and if there is a chance or risk or side effects to your child, then you as a parent should be advised of these risks and it's you that should make the decision in regards to your child.
It's called 'informed consent'.

The governments ACTUAL position is that you have no rights over your child, and that you're a criminal if you're poor and don't pick up that .44 magnum and put it to your kids head yourself in the interests of 'the greater good'.
They'll take their benefits away, and move to try and take the kids as well, claiming unfit parents.

They wouldn't 'believe' in the way we 'told them to believe'.

It's only the poor that have to be vaccinated by threatening to take their money, the rich aren't forced to vaccinate they are not financially forced to, and for all we know doctors themselves may not vaccinate their kids.

well summarised Armchair.

Well I guess this proves that opinions on this Forum
are like a**holes.
Every one has one.

Armchair Critic,

Clearly you don't know what an agnostic is. I explained it at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19170#340713.

You're welcome.

//They aren't 100% safe or effective in the way they're claimed to be...//

By who?

//and if there is a chance or risk or side effects to your child, then you as a parent should be advised of these risks//

They are.

//and it's you that should make the decision in regards to your child.//

They do.

//They'll take their benefits away and move to try and take the kids as well, claiming unfit parents.//

[citation needed]

You may quite possibly have the worst grasp of probability theory I have ever seen, Armchair. Whatever you do, don't take up punting: you'll lose the lot.

Armchair Critic,

I apologise for being so dismissive of you in my last two posts, but I try not to waste too much time on conspiracy theorists, I find it about as productive and as satisfying as arguing with flat-earthers (you haven’t gotten into that recent fad, too, have you?). After all, any evidence that contradicts your beliefs will simply be written off as data concocted by the powers that be to have us believing what they want us to believe. It’s a bulletproof position you hold there, and one that is impervious to reason or evidence.

Anyway, it comes as no surprise to me that you have a communist-fearing perspective on what agnosticism is. Some attempt to portray agnosticism as some sort of a middle ground when it comes to religion. This isn’t the case, however. You right-wing atheists don’t seem to be comfortable completely contradicting the religious with whom you are more-often-than-not politically aligned with, so you invent this new category of belief and call it “agnosticism”.

Theists love it, too. It makes them feel like there’s this group of people out there who are at least willing to meet them halfway. Just look at how runner rushed to embrace your every word. Years ago, I remember Graham Young (himself a theist) once implied that agnosticism was the the most reasonable category because they didn’t claim to know one way or another (apparently not realising that neither do theists or atheists, necessarily):

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1851&page=0#36938

Anyway, I hope you understand what gnosticism and agnosticism are now, and why they are pointless positions (I mean, who cares what one thinks we can know?).

“The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory, is that conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is actually chaotic. The truth is that it is not the Illuminati, or the Jewish Banking Conspiracy, or the Gray Alien Theory. The truth is far more frightening - nobody is in control. The world is rudderless.” - Alan Moore