I'll just leave this here.

Lol

Why allow an injection into your body if it is not clear what it contains?

Let me educate you: A vaccine contains a dead or modified virus so that your body will recognize it when the real virus comes to your body, and create antibodies to defend against them. The dead/modified virus also contains a protein layer encapsulating it. They also contain trace amounts of preservatives and stabilizers (like the protein). About 99.99999% of the time, the worst reaction anyone could possibly get is a rash. In about 1 in ten million children, the child may have a worse reaction. But this pales in comparison to the percentage of children who suffer/die if they catch a disease like polio and aren't vaccinated. So all in all, vaccines definitely save vastly more people than they harm. Hope this helps to educate your pitifully ignorant brain.

What the preservatives and stabilizers are isn't disclosed, and for many, that IS important.

And before you accuse me of being an anti-vaxer, both of my children are vaccinated. But I am a strong believer of the ability to make personal medical decisions. Once you allow the government to impose ANY medical treatment "for the greater good", that's a slippery slope that can give them control over any medical decision. Forced sterilization for the "greater good" of population control, for example. Denying you the right to spend your own money on alternate treatment (even if it means certain death otherwise) because it wastes resources. (Don't think this can happen, look up Charles Guard).

Charlie Gard (damn autocorrect)

I agree with you that people can make their own decisions medically. But what annoys me the most is that there is an incredibly abundant amount of research that all points to vaccines being much more helpful than hurtful. I will look up what the preservatives and stabilizers are though, because I am pretty curious myself.

You are not likely to find answers to those specifics, as they are protected "trade secrets". This contributes to wild speculation (I once read a claim that peanut oil is an ingredient, and that's why peanut allergies are on the rise). Also you are dealing with anecdotal evidence in which many parents claim that a child's behavioral change (towards autism) coincided with vaccination. This actually isn't ridiculous when you think about it. A vaccine forces an immune reaction, which isn't necessarily a positive thing. (Fevers and aniphylactic shock are immune reactions). So if autism is realted to a negative immune reaction, there could be a relationship. However, every child will also have an immune reaction when simply exposed to regular illnesses like the common cold. Which means statistically there would not be a statistical correlation, (since a child is bound to encounter an immune reaction regardless of whether or not they are vaccinated) but could affect the timming of onset.

First of all, you spelled "related" wrong. Second of all, Autism is a genetic disease. The genetics of a baby are decided at conception. Therefore, a vaccine can not possibly have an effect on the genetics of a baby. And before you ask it, no, immune reactions do not ever change the DNA of a person. Also, while fevers and anaphylactic shock are immune reactions, they are so incredibly rare with a person who was just vaccinated. Another thing to keep in mind is that Autism did exist before vaccines, but the autistic people were just locked up in mental hospitals. And even if there was a correlation between autism and vaccinations (which there isn't, but always remember correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation), then having an autistic child is better than having a dead child. Lastly, with what you said about "trade secrets", that implies that hospitals and doctors are trying to scam people out of their money. A vaccine costs roughly $75 depending where you are and what vaccine it is, while intensive care for a disease costs roughly $3000 for a disease that could be vaccine prevented. So no, your next argument can't be that doctors are trying to scam us.

First off, criticizing a typo proves you're an asshole, not that you're inteligent.
Second, the causes of autism are unknown. And while there may be a genetic predisposition towards it (like a genetic predisposition towards cancer), the triggers are unknown.
What I suggested is not that people shouldn't vaccinate (if you read, I clearly stated that children were bound to encounter immune reactions regardless). I posited a possible reason why many believe they are related.
Fevers are actually quite common for vaccines, but is considered a nominal side effect, but I merely used them to point out that immune reactions are not always positive.
"Trade Secrets" does not imply a scam. The recipe for Coke (as opposed to Pepsi) is a trade secret. In pharmaceuticals, it is used to keep competing drug companies from producing the exact same product (this is why many swear name brand drugs perform better than their generic counterparts). But if we are going to argue cost of treatment, yes it is more to treat ONE person IF they get sick. But let's say out of 100 in the population, one were to actually get sick without vaccination. That $3000 in profit per 100 people. But if you vaccinate all 100 of those people, that's $7500 in profit per $100, over twice as much in profit.
Your knee jerk reaction is actually quite amusing though.

Believe it or not, my intention was not to be an asshole right off the bat. I can tell that you are an intelligent person, and while I may have come off as an asshole with my spelling correction, I am attempting to give you helpful advice. In any argument, if you have a spelling mistake, it will automatically detract from your credibility. Am I flawless with my spelling most of the time? Heck no, but I try to proofread to make myself sound more believable.
On the one regarding profit margin, this is (mostly) untrue for a few main reasons: The first being that more than 1 in 100 unvaccinated people would get sick. This is simply untrue; even with people who are being inoculated to a disease, or given extremely small amounts of the virus to build immunity, about 1 in 50 or 2% become sick with it. Lets say people contract a virus, like, say, measles. The majority of people are not immune to measles, thus the amount of money for intensive care for 100 unvaccinated people would be much more than you say. And vaccines still are not as much as a profit as intensive care. Vaccines almost always prevent the possibility of intensive care, so hospitals would not make as much money. That was the point I was trying to get at; that vaccines prevent something that is much more of a monetary gain for medical institutions.
On the fact that fevers are common for vaccines, I have never heard of that ever happening but I will believe you on it because I have not researched it and I assume you have.
On your point on autism, you are partially correct. There is not 100% certainty on what the cause of autism is, but it is thought by many medical researchers that autism is caused mostly by genetics.
On my "knee jerk reaction" I'm not really sure what you mean here. It seems like an immature way to phrase something impulsive, but I don't really know. Please have better context in the future.
Lastly, there is the fact that it is absolutely indisputable that vaccines save more people than they harm. I am aware that you did not argue about this specifically, but I really need to get it out there. WHO (World Health Organization) estimates that the measles vaccine alone has saved the lives of 20.4 million people alone from 2000 to 2016. It is also estimated by WHO that 6 million people are saved by vaccines around the world annually. Last but not least, only 1 in 1 million children have an adverse reaction to a vaccine, a statistic also from WHO.

Then I guess you are SOL