Yet the original decision was based largely on the initial fraudulent research.  They also site the interaction with his particular genetic mutation, I'm curious what that might be and whether that alone might explain his reaction to the vaccine.

Again, not stating that there are no adverse reactions to vaccines, there are, I've seen them first hand, but a single court decision still does nothing to counteract the existing weight of evidence, there's no new data presented here.

You have pitched this as a 'think twice before vaccinating your kids" piece, rather than what it is, a single unfortunate case where a court has ruled that a young child has probably had an unfortunate reaction to a vaccine.

Sorry. I usually don't get that harsh/bitter. I haven't been this passionate/one-sided over a political subject in a VERY long time and I've forgotten how to do it respectfully. :P

Of course if you open up your border to mexico and allow millions of second/third world kids in there is going to be problems.

Sad that the left can not see something that is staring them so blatantly in the face and instead decides to go the totalitarian fascism route.Problem-reaction-solution.

Point taken; I was perhaps overly forceful, as this is an issue that is quite personal to me.

I would love to hear the reports wanting people banned for being pro-vax though. Were they just tagged "flaming" or "trolling", or did they actually ask for a ban based on ideology? Obviously I understand if you can't answer, I'm just intrigued.

Shhhhh.... that's just a conspiracy theory. *puts tinfoil hat on* 

Here's the funny part though; the pharmaceutical companies would actually make more money if nobody vaccinated; it's a lot more profitable to treat a chronically ill population than to just immunize everyone. Unfortunately for them, the genie's out of the bottle, so if they don't make and sell the vaccines, someone else will, and they still wouldn't get to profit off a society crippled by endemic illness.

Based on what I've seen of the report, I would assume it's more to do with the fact they've recorded all the medical issues children who have had the vaccine have had (related or otherwise). The table that's taken from lists a ridiculous number of medical issues including completely unrelated conditions that are purely genetic disorders.

It's more an exercise in data probably used to see if there's any correlation between side effects and existing conditions rather than a table purely citing side effects. It's completely taken out of context.

Less customers overall, yes. But instead of just getting to immunise each customer, which is quite cheap, you'd get to sell them antibiotics, anti-virals, and some medications in perpetuity. 

than just do the realy important vaccinations and try to not get the 6X vaccines. 

Tempting as that is, no.

Reports are confidential for a reason - people need to feel comfortable reporting things knowing that it wont blow back in their face. I won't violate that because I happen to disagree with their ideology.

In a general sense yes, there has been some 'flaming/trolling' type comment.