Constructive or not, it's 100% accurate. If you weren't such a bleeding idiot, here's a few things that wouldn't need explaining:
1) NOBODY is arguing that thiomersal is good for you; it's already been removed from most all vaccines, and the few that still use it are also available in thiomersal free versions; and there are ZERO scientific studies that suggest it's a substantial risk anyway. Why do you keep bringing it up like it's important?
2) Most vaccines in use today have been in use for more than 20 years, yet not a one of 'em has proven to pose a substantial risk. The idea that they're full of unknowns, untested, and dangerous is just laughable.
3) Arguing for better treatment after the fact in lieu of vaccines is equally ridiculous. Who in their right mind would prefer to get deathly ill yet live instead of never getting the disease at all? I suppose the doctors and drug companies would love that, though, as then they'd get to rake in the cash for all the extra office visits, treatments, and hospital stays.
4) Those stats have nothing to do with the efficacy or risks of vaccines, so what's your point? Are you really trying to say that virtually zero deaths today is no better than 40 deaths per year (based on the mortality rate in '63) plus the thousands of kids that'd get sick but live?!? That drop in the mortality rate since 1900 is mostly due to medical advancements and improved access to care (you'll find similar drops for ALL maladies over the same period), so you'd be better off looking at how measles vaccines have helped in developing countries: 75% drop since 2000.
