Sorry about the belated reply (I don't get on the forums nearly often enough!), and mods, please let me know if I cross a line and I will rephrase as necessary.
So, starting from the top:
@Bill Phil states it quite well. A very quick note regarding autism and vaccines: the relationship between pathogens (including vaccines) and the body is very well understood. Autism, though not much is known about its causes, is highly hereditary. There is no vaccine which can interfere with the human cell's genome, and if there were, it would have to specifically target brain cells. The brain has a complex protection layer called the blood-brain barrier which filters out most pathogens (and a lot of helpful drugs, by the way, this is one of the difficulties of treating mental disorders in general). So IF a vaccine could get pass the blood-brain barrier, AND IF it targeted brain cells, AND IF it could interfere with the genome, then it is POSSIBLE that it could have an influence on the rates of autism. But, there is no vaccine that does any of that.
I won't say that you're entirely wrong here, and it is absolutely your right to hold such a belief, but I will say this: individuals are often fallible. The entire medical community? Unlikely. Peer reviews and other such methods of ensuring accuracy and correctness minimize the possibility of error. Personally I'd trust the medical field far more than any restaurant's food, and I love me a good burger.
First of all, I freaking love you for this. Very clever, +1. I laughed so hard. Regarding mercury, it is elemental mercury that is toxic. Vaccines sometimes (and now very rarely!) use ethylmercury, MgC2H5, which "does not accumulate and is actively excreted via the gut" (WHO), and so has minimal health risk. WHO has set a tolerable intake of 1.6μg per kilogram of body weight per week (https://www.who.int/ipcs/features/mercury.pdf). A 7 pound baby is 3kg, so tolerable intake of 4.8μg of ethylmercury per week. I did some looking and couldn't find any vaccines that contain more than 0.3μg per dose. I don't know how much was used in the past, but mercury sure isn't a concern anymore. Heck, you could complain about trace amounts of radioactive molecules in your body, but they'll still be there (naturally, I might add) - Carbon-14, if you're wondering.
My somewhat-smart-ass argument: There are a lot more people in the world, and the number of doctors/hospitals is not increasing proportionally. Additionally, people are living longer, exasperating that issue.
If you take a vaccine, you can follow each of its components' journey through the body and see what it effects and what it doesn't. The cellular mechanisms are very well understood. In fact, making a vaccine is very hard without a thorough understanding of the virus' structure and function in the body. Pasteur was incredibly lucky with his smallpox vaccine that cowpox was related, and therefore similar, to smallpox. Most viruses don't have an easy analogue. Look at the Zika or Dengue viruses. I studied with the lead researcher of the group that discovered the structure of these viruses. Only by knowing how they function can you determine how to safely administer a vaccine for a virus.
Science should be based on arguments, not authority?
Do you think that there are too many of us? Ok, who do you want to kill first?
Disconnect here on the idea of authority. Scientific authority is based on knowledge, whereas generally authority equates to power. If science was based on arguments, every smart-ass teenager would be a scientist. Science is based on the scientific method, and determining, as closely as possible given available data, facts. The scientific community has authority in the sense of the cumulative knowledge and understanding of all of science, and, from that authority, the responsibility to use and disseminate that information for the betterment of all.
Ok, so this statement implies a misunderstanding of how viruses, specifically the ones we vaccinate against, spread. The viruses that we have vaccines for are generally the most infectious viruses out there. Remember swine flu in 2019? Remember how quickly it spread? Our "advanced" societies and lifestyles didn't stop that. That was a relatively mild strain of influenza. Imagine if that had been a more deadly strain. There's only so much we can do to limit the spread of viruses that are airborne. We breathe in, if infectious viral particles are in that breath, we're infected. Even waterborne viruses are difficult to filter out due to their incredibly small size. Many of these viruses spread far too easily for a change in lifestyle to stop.
Regardless of all that, in science, when determining the efficacy of viruses anything, we have what we call a "control group". This is an intentional method of comparing a set of samples under particular conditions with another set with the same conditions, except one. That one variable is what we are trying to determine. Read about them in more detail here: https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-control-group-606107
You can bet your last dollar that given a control group of people not vaccinated and a test group of people who are vaccinated, if both groups are exposed to the virus, the non-vaccinated people will get sick. Standard of living isn't a variable in this case, it is a constant.
I believe I discussed this in my last post, please go back and read it again. This comment also makes some assumptions about the immune system which are inaccurate. The entire purpose of the immune system is to take bits of the world that get into the body and learn from it. It continues learning your entire life, unless you have some sort of immunodeficiency. The only known thing which can change the immune system's function (aside from some inherent genetic defect) is the HIV virus, which targets immune cells. No vaccine has that ability, and HIV is, of course, itself unique among human viruses. I mentioned earlier, the mechanisms by which vaccines work is incredibly well understood. Regarding development of the immune system, here's a great article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4707740/, though I will note it is quite heavy on the scientific terms. Someday when I have more time maybe I'll try to simplify it, but for now, honestly, watch the khan academy videos: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/human-biology/immunology/v/role-of-phagocytes-in-innate-or-nonspecific-immunity
It is very easy to test if the vaccine is of quality or not. But it certainly is possible that a vaccine for a new strain of virus, especially a very quickly evolving virus like the flu, hasn't been tested enough. One of the tricky things with flu vaccines, sometimes we can't know exactly what the strain will be like, so we make guesses. We look at the most variable portions of the genome, make a few likely changes, and base the new vaccines on those. Depending on how quickly the seasonal flu manifests itself, it may not be possible to be 100% sure if the vaccine will be the right one. BUT! We do know that the vaccine itself will not be harmful. The danger here is that the actual flu virus is different enough that it could still harm people. The vaccine itself is safe. The "guessing" version of vaccine development is much less common than isolating a new strain asap and developing a vaccine from there.
Aside from influenza, most viruses don't mutate quickly enough for this to be a problem.
This is a moot point, since from a moral standpoint we have to try to save as many lives as possible. Also vaccines are generally injections, which take about 10 seconds and don't require an M.D. And generally people who are already sick aren't getting vaccines.
I'm afraid it is you who misunderstands herd immunity. And also immunity in general.
Herd resistance is thus: If most people are immune to a disease, if they become exposed to someone who has the disease, they won't become a carrier. They can go back to other people who are not immune without fear of infecting the other non-immune person. But if enough non-immune people are milling around, the chances of spreading the infection among non-immune individuals increases. People who can't be vaccinated (immunodeficient, usually) are very much dependent on herd immunity to keep them from getting sick. (Note this is primarily for diseases transmitted via air or direct contact).
As for immunity in general, again, please re-read my first post, where i explain how vaccines work. To quote the primary relevant bit:
To say that "immunity comes from vaccines and not from the effectiveness of their immune system" is a misunderstanding of the relationship between the immune system and potential antigens. The effectiveness of the immune system depends on exposure to antigens. Any antigen. Vaccines trick the body into thinking they are dealing with the actual virus! The body learns about the virus from the vaccine, learns how to deal with the virus, and so when they encounter the actual virus, they can fight it off much more quickly.
Everyone makes the decision for themselves and their children. Schools can be divided into those to which only vaccinated children can go, both are allowed or only for unvaccinated children. Let everyone decide about their family, stop distributing this oppressive propaganda that only scares people that every unvaccinated child will die or is sick. The fact that you did not get vaccinated does not mean that you are ill and infectious. The opponents of vaccination are not responsible for how viruses spread, so they should not bear the cost of your fear of illness. If you are scared to get sick, then you have to figure out how to protect yourself without interfering with other people's lives.
I'll make the analogy of a stoplight. If you want to go ahead and run a red light, by all means do so, but be prepared to be responsible when someone dies when you crash into them. I personally cannot justify unnecessarily risking the lives of others (in this case people who are immunodeficient or for some reason cannot afford the vaccine (or won't take them)) when we have no credible evidence showing that vaccines are in any way harmful. You have the right to think otherwise, but by definition, people in a society interfere in other people's lives.
Edit: Oh crap, that was only the first page.... maybe I'll get to the rest later.... 3 hours is enough for one sitting methinks....
Edit2: Made a few changes for clarity.