I'm sure all of us sympathise with you for your personal experience over vaccinations, but it could also be said that these experiences bias your ability to look at the issue objectively.
I certainly do not claim to be unbiased on any matter influenced by personal experience.
Throughout the years, I've noticed how easily overconfidence can lead to delusions of "impartiality".
Usually those succumbing to such delusions aren't sufficiently self aware to know that they've actually bought into a personal fantasy of superiority.
I used to be amazed by the number of people confidently expressing a firm belief in their own impartiality.
It was seldom (if ever) true!
Some of the most blatantly opinionated people I know, proudly profess their total impartiality! Unsurprisingly, those same people are very quick to accuse others of prejudice!
The underlying logic seemed to be akin to: "I know I'm right! Therefore anyone in disagreement must be wrong!"
Some people do attempt to synthesise a level of objectivity by making conscious, concerted (and indeed noble) efforts to quarantine favoured opinions whilst in dialogue with others.
However, despite best efforts, past experience will still hold some influence over interpretation and filtration of data.
Thankfully such people are rarely seen to make the foolish error of presuming total impartiality. Nor do such people make the error of claiming the infallibility of anything, irrespective of popularity or the amount of supportive evidence.
By now some may be wondering what this has to do with the immunisation debate.
A perusal of the posts (including linked articles) within this thread will reveal numerous examples of prejudice appearing on both sides of the debate.
It's not so much a question as to whether or not prejudice exists - it's more a question of the degree to which prejudice exists!
Yes, a small percentage of people suffer reactions to vaccinations, but is this just cause to deny the vast majority the protection that comes from vaccination ?
I believe earlier comments have already made my position on this question quite clear:
...As for the point I'm making, it's similar to comments I've made earlier on this thread.
I already know from my own direct experience that vaccines can have extremely adverse consequences for some (not all) unlucky individuals, and am annoyed when subjected to peer pressure from misinformed members of our society.
Please be assured that I am not supportive of any campaign to mandate or outlaw vaccination!
However, I am generally opposed to the deliberate misrepresentation of pharmacology, particularly when such misinformation is part of a campaign that threatens to remove the right of the individual to make informed choices.
Whilst acknowledging the inappropriateness of dictating how others manage their health, I was vainly hoping that such consideration for individual rights might be reciprocated. (I find the eagerness, with which some individuals, have embraced this campaign for removal of such an important human freedom, thoroughly disconcerting.)
...
If your vaccinations produced no ill effects to you and protected you against disease, I wonder how different your opinion would be ?
My comments in this post regarding prejudice and impartiality should suffice.