Death by other causes than the disease addressed by the vaccine is irrelevant.  You can leave the doctor's office after getting the shots and die in a car crash, but that's not a good argument against vaccines.

99.9% is NOT a 100% guarantee (notice the numbers are different).  Vaccine compensation programs are for the very rare cases where the recipient has an allergic reaction to an immunization.  The programs began in the 1980s as a way to prevent vaccine shortages lower vaccination rates which both risk a resurgence in the diseases being vaccinated against.  It's a no-fault settlement program which compensates patients or parents financially for unpredictable negative outcomes of vaccinations.

If your child has the SAME RISK of dying from the vaccine as from SIDS, why NOT vaccinate?  As least SIDS is not communicable.  The diseases, though, are communicable, and put other kids at risk.

I mean sids is what they are calling when a child dies after being vaccinated. That is why there is no "deaths" related to vaccines, it is just SIDS

Death is a possible outcome regardless of vaccination or not, if death is out of the question for those vaccinated them why is there a vaccine compensation program? Why do you have to sign a waiver to prevent you from sueing the vaccine companies? The information packets I got from queens states the risk of SIDS. So if my child has the same chances of dying as a vaccinated kid. Then why put my child at risk of vaccine side effects?

Small pox killed some 300 million people since the disease was identified.  Today, there are no areas with any reported cases.  A world-wide immunization program eradicated it decades ago.  Today, it only exists in labs for continued research into vaccinations and treatments.

Imagine if that could be said of all childhood diseases.

I mean sids is what they are calling when a child dies after being vaccinated. That is why there is no "deaths" related to vaccines, it is just SIDS

So, you're saying there is no evidence the children who died from SIDS died from being vaccinated? Somehow you think SIDS, despite lack of evidence, is vaccination-related? 

SIDS occurs in both vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

Hmmm.....

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/2004/07/23/sids.php

In a study announced this week, scientists have pinpointed a genetic mutation that causes an inherited form of sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS, in which infants die from cardiac or respiratory arrest before their first birthday. The disease has taken the lives of more than twenty Amish infants over the past two decades.

To continue this analogy there is also a 10 foot rat biting peoples heads off who don't drink the punch.  A few people are allergic to the punch for whatever reasons and because 99% of the people drank the punch the rat is unable to find suitable food and dies.  Your method scares everyone about the perhaps dangers of the punch and the giant rat gets free food and makes babies and we have a group of giant rats biting peoples heads off.

My point is that a lot of people simply are accepting the vaccine problems, as a kind of necessary evil.

There is NO reason for vaccines to be contaminated, or to use harmful ingredients.

The science of vaccination is sound. I have said this before.

If vaccines cannot be made safe, then another method of vaccination should be developed.

By accepting unsafe vaccines, people are ALLOWING the problem to CONTINUE. Vaccine makers LOVE those who brush off vaccination warnings, and do the hard work for them to silence those who are raising red flags.

When a large percentage of the population AGREE with vaccine makers, then that is sufficient reason for people to do NOTHING about it, since so many people are FINE with the status quo.

My point is that a lot of people simply are accepting the vaccine problems, as a kind of necessary evil.

There is NO reason for vaccines to be contaminated, or to use harmful ingredients.

The science of vaccination is sound. I have said this before.

If vaccines cannot be made safe, then another method of vaccination should be developed.

By accepting unsafe vaccines, people are ALLOWING the problem to CONTINUE. Vaccine makers LOVE those who brush off vaccination warnings, and do the hard work for them to silence those who are raising red flags.

When a large percentage of the population AGREE with vaccine makers, then that is sufficient reason for people to do NOTHING about it, since so many people are FINE with the status quo.

Nobody argues against a vaccine supply that's as safe as we can make it.  But, just like the water supply which we test regularly for "acceptable levels" of contaminants and impurities, we have to also set standards for ALL the chemicals we allow the medical industry to introduce into our bodies.

Perfect would be nice, but it's often unrealistic.  "Good enough" has to be based on science and production capabilities.  It's the reality of mass production.  Car parts are not always perfect off the assembly line.  If you want hand-made perfection, it's going to cost you Rolls Royce type money!

Why don't we give parents a choice in deciding if they want to vaccinate their children?

Protecting a child through immunization is a parent's decision, taken in discussion with their doctor. The Federal Government may recommend that States develop laws or requirements for vaccines, but whether the State includes a given vaccine in its regulations and how informed consent is to be obtained are State decisions. Currently, 48 States allow religious exemptions to vaccination and 15 allow philosophical exemptions, in addition to the medical contraindications that are the same in all 50 States. The rationale for limiting choice is that vaccinations have been a very effective approach to protecting the public's health in the United States. The first article in a series on ten great achievements in public health in the 20th century highlighted the impact of vaccines universally recommended for children (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report; CDC 1999;48:243-48).

Because of high vaccine coverage rates today, one may focus on rare, potentially vaccine-associated adverse effects, but before vaccines were introduced there were over 175,000 cases of diphtheria annually (1920-22), over 147,000 cases of Pertussis (1922-25), and over 503,000 cases of measles (1951-54). More recently, an estimated 20,000 cases of invasive infections such as meningitis caused by Haemophilus influenzae type b occurred in 1985. Now, because of vaccination, the number of cases of these infections has been decreased by about 96% to 100%. But lessons from other countries have relevance for the United States - 1) if vaccination rates decrease, the number of cases of infection will increase as occurred in the United Kingdom and Japan after concerns about adverse events associated with the whole cell Pertussis vaccine resulted in decreased immunization (In the U.S. today, less reactogenic acellular Pertussis vaccines are now recommended); and 2) the decrease in disease of 96% to 100% exceeds the level of vaccine coverage. This is because at high vaccination rates, the circulation of a bacteria or virus may be decreased which lessens the chance that even someone who has not been immunized will get disease. This "herd immunity" is important because some persons can not be vaccinated because of illnesses such as cancer and high vaccination rates in the community will protect them from disease.

https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/ucm133806.htm