Every false claim you're repeating has been addressed in previous threads:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3638635&page=1
Here are some of the highlights:
The facts are quite plain. The science overwhelmingly supports routine childhood vaccinations, and if you don't reach that conclusion, it's because you either can't find legitimate sources, or you choose to read and believe bogus sources.
The fact is, by skipping out on routine shots you're putting your child at risk not only for diseases that are normally mild (chicken pox), but also for ones that are devastaing, like pneumococcal or haemophilus meningitis. These diseases were common prior to the introduction of effective vaccines, and any pediatrician who trained before their introduction can tell you awful stories of limp children who were well a few hours before, and doing spinal taps on them and aspirating pus out where there should be clear spinal fluid. If they survived, they were often left with severe neurological deficits.
The pneumococcal vaccine (targeting the 7 most prevalent serotypes) dropped meningitis rates by 50%, with most cases now being caused by strains not covered in the vaccine. Similar data with Haemophilus. These are not diseases you can avoid; these organisms are part of the normal flora of a lot of people, so unlike chicken-pox and measles you can't rely on herd immunity. Since these diseases are fairly rare, you will probably luck out and not kill your child. But, you basically are choosing to multiply the risks of several serious diseases for your child, all because of an effective campaign of fear-mongering and ignorance.
You may say that the risk is small (and you are correct), but the risk is also small that you'll have a car accident on the way home tonight. Why bother with the car seat for the child? You've probably never had an accident that would hurt her yet, so the risks of it happening today are well below 1%, perhaps even in the 1 in 50,000 range, which is the chance of her developing meningitis. If that risk is acceptable, screw the car seat and drive...
No vaccine makes it to licensure in the US without: phase 1 safety and dose finding studies. Phase 2 proof of efficacy studies. Anf finally, phase 3, randomized trials, either against placebo, or against an already existing vaccine (if a placebo is considered unethical).
Here's just a smattering of the placebo controlled trials of vaccines that pop up when you put in "vaccine AND placebo" into pubmed and limit it to clinical trials:
Four year efficacy of prophylactic human papillomavirus quadrivalent vaccine against low grade cervical, vulvar, and vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia and anogenital warts: randomised controlled trial.
FUTURE I/II Study Group
BMJ. 2010 Jul 20
---------------------------------
Safety of herpes zoster vaccine in the shingles prevention study: a randomized trial.
Simberkoff MS, Arbeit RD, Johnson GR, Oxman MN, Boardman KD, Williams HM, Levin MJ, Schmader KE, Gelb LD, Keay S, Neuzil K, Greenberg RN, Griffin MR, Davis LE, Morrison VA, Annunziato PW; Shingles Prevention Study Group.
Ann Intern Med. 2010 May 4
INTERVENTION: Single dose of herpes zoster vaccine or placebo
(my institution was one of the sites for this study, we still are following some of the patients)
---------------------------------------------
Safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity of an inactivated influenza vaccine in healthy adults: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial over two influenza seasons.
Jackson LA, Gaglani MJ, Keyserling HL, Balser J, Bouveret N, Fries L, Treanor JJ.
BMC Infect Dis. 2010 Mar 17
------------------------------------------
Safety and immunogenicity of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in infants: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study.
Englund JA, Walter E, Black S, Blatter M, Nyberg J, Ruben FL, Decker MD; GRC28 Study Team.
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010 Feb
---------------------------------------------------
That's from the first page or 2, I don't have time or energy to comb through all 1,644 results for you.
Funding: Most studies have 2 potential sources: industry or government. Some rare ones get private organization funds (American cancer society, foundations, etc). Generally we love studies that go through the NIH or VA funding mechanisms, because they compete for funds based on the merits of their ideas, vs promoting a company owned drug or vaccine. However, funding for research has decreased, and costs of trails have skyrocketed, so more and more trials do have industry ties. Do we discount them? No. But we do requre that the authors verify that they are in control of the data, that they vouch for the analyses, and that the sponsor did not have veto power over results. Now all clinical trials are registered at clinicaltrials.gov, so that all of this is out there for people to know about.
Re: vaccines as new, unnatural, and radical. Well, there are variable definitions of those words. Jenner's work with varriolation (early small-pox vaccination) was in the late 1700's. Diptheria, tetanus, typhoid, all had vaccines in the early 1900's. Most of them were hardly radical ideas- it was known that organisms caused disease, and that if people survived they were immune. So, take killed or modified organism, introduce them, and see if immunity can be induced in absence of disease. Perhaps that is radical, it seems like basic science to me.