I'm having a hard time figuring out something.
Point A: Obviously vaccines have some risks, or we wouldn't be hearing about parasites, i.e. non-vaxers, taking advantage of the virtuous, who undergo the RISK of having their children vaccinated to maintain herd immunity against disease. Right?
Point B: People who claim to have vaccine damaged children obviously vaccinated them, took the risk, and are enduring the consequences. So these people should be treated as heroes for herd immunity. Right?
Point C: However, in real life, vaccine damage is very likely to be dismissed. By doctors. By the program which is supposed to compensate the vaccine injured. In news stories. In medical journals. By CDC spokespeople. And in the online community it seems to be mostly either ignored or denied. Why?
Where I'm heading with this: the problem of the denial of vaccine damage has a lot to do with fueling the vaccine critics. Even parents whose children are vaccine damaged don't necessarily jump immediately and totally into the anti-vaccine camp. They are pushed there, gradually, but the discovery that they are considered to be the bad guys, even though they vaccinated and even though their children took the risk and even though they did their bit for herd immunity and a lot more. And other parents read these stories and see what happened and see who gets blamed and who doesn't.
So why the attempts to pretend that there is RISK but that this risk never results in any actual injuries?