[acdha]

So far you're following the anti-vax script perfectly: lots of FUD, no claims specified in enough detail to even evaluate them much less counteract the overwhelming evidence that vaccines are a public good with no reputable downside.

[Xeoncross]

I've been supplying information and you've been complaining. I fail to see how I'm at fault for trying to answer questions.

[Dylan16807]

You didn't just talk about the debate. You stated as a fact that many vaccines have improper testing or substances. If you state something as a fact, you should be prepared to back it up.

[Xeoncross]

> You stated as a fact

You're putting words in my mouth. What I said was "...without what many would consider..."

I'm still taking about the debate itself and you're trying to make this a binary debate about vaccination.

[Dylan16807]

You stated toxicity as completely objective. (And you had better mean "toxic at the doses given", because anything is toxic in large-enough quantity.)

> What I said was "...without what many would consider..."

That's still calling them correct about the vaccines not meeting those standards. There are a lot of claims about vaccine testing that are objectively false. It's not that their standards are higher, it's that they falsely believe vaccines undergo less testing than they actually do.

I don't want this to be a binary debate. I want you to quantify 'many' and provide actual evidence of anything.

[acdha]

You're still not supporting your claims. If, as you said, the debate is not that simple the onus is on you to justify the claim that there is in fact any significant debate over vaccination in the scientific community.