Thank you for taking the time to address these pertinent points and putting yourself out there on a contentious issue. I have gone through the vaccination debates ad nauseum on both ends (cue joke about a vaccine preventable disease making you purge at both ends), so I know where these subjects can lead and how unreasonable people can be when discussing this, especially with the pseudo-anonymity of the internet.

You have created an eloquent and thorough deconstruction of the conclusions that were erroneously drawn by steemtruth, and supported by his followers and fans (lol@truthtrain's incoherent babbling and talking ridiculous shit; dude's become unhinged in grandiose conspiratorial thinking). It is quite intellectually dishonest for them to selectively cherry-pick evidence that supports a narrative through lying by omission, all while simultaneously accusing scientists of the same, or worse. Forgivable if they don't know any better, but I think they do know better than to appeal to poor reasoning.

I also appreciate that you are a research toxicologist writing this article who can properly analyze data and interpret figures; this is important, as it means this information isn't just more ideologically driven spam from science-enthusiasts that may misrepresent the facts to further their "I'm right, your wrong" narrative (e.g. "vaccines are 100% effective!"). Your analysis is honest and empirically driven, leaving possibility for doubt, and acknowledging that nothing is 100% effective.

The level of certainty that the anti-vaccination crowd speaks with is concerning, and shows a lack of appreciation for the importance of being uncertain. If there is no room for doubt there is no room for progress. It is refreshing to see that you understand the value and importance of being uncertain.

Thank you again for taking the time to address these articles in a thorough point-by-point manner.

Cheers!