You're changing the subject. You read that whole rant up there about the actual, rational objections of the anti-vax movement and your answer is "denial is a powerful force." THERE IS NO DENIAL HERE. There are legitimate concerns that are not easily answered. It's all about risk management - most of the anti-vax crowd at this point is choosing a different method of risk management than the one you choose. Their way is hell on herd immunity and, from a statistical standpoint, puts their kids at much higher risk for several diseases that are largely unfamiliar to their peers. Their way, however, sure as hell isn't "denial." Meanwhile, your "data" is STRAIGHT UP FUCKING WRONG. Thimerosal was removed from vaccines as a preventative measure at the urging of the American Academy of Pediatrics. This isn't a bunch of entitled parents whining, this is the industry group that bloody well better know what's up urging a change based on safety. This change was based on studies done by the FDA that demonstrated that, yes indeed, with clumsy formulation you could push mercury levels above what was theoretically a good idea for small children. Yeah, you could likely do the same thing by feeding them too much tunafish... but then, we aren't insisting all babies eat tunafish. "The public" didn't really get going until Jenny McCarthy, who didn't even have a son until 2002, whose son didn't even get diagnosed until 2005, and whose life didn't hit the books until September 2007. Yet you choose to see this as a "facts vs opinions" debate. Here's a fact: The Lancet, a widely-respected (if not THE most widely respected) medical journal, published a paper theoretically linking vaccines and autism. Here's an opinion: That was a terrible fucking thing for The Lancet to do. However, if you're going to hold something up to the standard of a peer-reviewed medical journal, the "autism scare" passed muster from 1999 until 2010. The fact that vaccine skepticism still exists even now should indicate to you that it's about more than autism. (and always has been: http://www.dollkind.com/raggedy-ann-doll.shtml )
Peer review evaluates data and the potential impact of a study, and then decides if its publication worthy. What a peer reviewer very rarely does is to say, "Prove to me these data aren't fraudulent". One operates from a perspective that the data were gathered in good faith unless there is a reason to suspect otherwise. In the case of that study, the data weren't merely massaged and carefully selected to make a link that might not exist, they were actually fraudulent. They were made up with the specific intent to manipulate the peer review honor system so that some asshole lawyer and his clients could win a lawsuit against a drug company. It was fraud, plain and simple, and yet some people still look to it as if it is as good as any other study in any peer reviewed journal. Some things the science community is defenseless against. Fraud is one, but then I suppose most industries are vulnerable to fraud. Meanwhile, you are incorrect. Thimerosal has never ever been linked to any disease, and it is completely nonsense to compare it mercury found in tuna. Thimerosal contains ethylmercury, as opposed to methylmercury, which is what's found in fish and is toxic. Just because they contain the common element mercury doesn't mean they exert any type of common effect. One need only to look as far as methyl vs. ethyl alcohol to know that. It was removed as a political move, because doctors really get sick of being sued, which happens to them again and again whether they are at fault or not. These people are deniers in the same sense that people who don't believe in global warming, evolution or the holocaust are deniers. The data are there to evaluate and people chose to believe the opposite of what they say. In this case they say that the best way to protect your child and everyone else's from disease is to get vaccines. They don't see it that way so they must, by definition, be denying that this is the truth. The fact that they have concerns and medical data aren't super easy for lay people to understand doesn't change anything. All deniers have concerns of one sort or another.
As a precautionary measure, the Public Health Service (including the FDA, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics issued two Joint Statements, urging vaccine manufacturers to reduce or eliminate thimerosal in vaccines as soon as possible (CDC 1999) and (CDC 2000). The U.S. Public Health Service agencies have collaborated with various investigators to initiate further studies to better understand any possible health effects from exposure to thimerosal in vaccines." http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability... I never said it was linked to any disease. I said the FDA pulled it because of potential build-up. I just quoted you two paragraphs from the FDA. In order for me (or my wife) to explain this properly to someone afraid of vaccines, I have to explain enough organic chemistry to point out that ethyl mercury and methyl mercury aren't the same... and then they're likely to point out that while polypropylene glycol and polyethylene glycol aren't the same, either, both of them are banned in Scandinavia as food additives but only one of them is in the US. That's not denialism. That's people - apparently, like you - who think that anyone who doesn't have an organic chemistry degree shouldn't be allowed to point out that there are contradictions in behavior of the very organizations that are supposed to protect them. "These people" are likely your friends and neighbors. They'd likely turn to you for advice. Your advice, as I've pointed out, is "STFU>FO." And that's why you never change their mind.
This is not an existential question. This is a "there's lots of conflicting data and I don't know who to trust" question. The way you deal with those types of questions is by saying "well, this means this, this means that, and in my professional opinion as a biologist there are bigger things to worry about than vaccines." The fact that we're not even arguing about whether vaccines are good or not says a lot: all I'm saying is "you're arguing wrong" and you keep coming back with "DENIALISTS WILL NEVER CHANGE THEIR MIND." Change the tense - I'm willing to agree that no amount of argument from you will change their mind because you see them as infidels.