Hello, PowerMasterAlex! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that you said the ingredients list shows vaccines to be unsafe, but the source you cited says nothing about those ingredients being unsafe, the claim that those ingredients make vaccines unsafe appears to be your own unsourced judgement, let me know if you have any questions. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the CDC itself doesn't count as a reliable source?
The list may not explicitly say the ingredients are unsafe, but it doesn't have to. Anyone with knowledge of the ingredients used would know they are unsafe. Aluminum is a poisonous chemical, no matter how you look at it. Human products are just wrong, and animal products can actually cause reactions should the person be allergic to them. And since injections aren't filtered through the body like it would with food, those products will remain in the bloodstream.
The CDC is a reliable source for the ingredients, but you statement that Anyone with knowledge of the ingredients used would know they are unsafe. is unsourced, even if you are sure something is true, you still need to cite a source for it, otherwise wikipedia would be full of false info that someone somewhere thought was true. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the fact that the CDC lists the chance of serious injury or death because the way that part was written appeared to be editorializing to make vaccines sound dangerous, and lacked the context that while vaccines can cause injury, the risk is usually less the the risk posed by infection if one remaines unvaccinated. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the proper way to include this information then? I'm not seeing it anywhere else, and the ingredients and side effects seems like important information to note. PowerMasterAlex (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Vaccine controversies , it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)