The question whether vaccines are beneficial would need some well designed research done on the matter first. This has, to my knowledge, never been done or published. What would have to be done is have a large group of people taking part in a long-term study. You'd need at least two large groups in this. One group getting vaccines another group that doesn't. After that the groups need to be compared over time in terms of their health history. Only when the vaccinated are significantly healthier than the unvaccinated one could say that the vaccines are 'beneficial' at least in terms of the broader group.
This does not say whether they are beneficial for the individual, though. There always can be exception.
Now the argument that the pro-vaxxers are using also work with statistics. E.g. they pick the figures of how many people did die diagnosed with a specific disease over the years. Then they indicate that a major vaccination campaign started at some point of time and will point out that the number of people that died with a specific diagnose did decrease over time. Now that sounds plausible to the layman that this would show that 'vaccines are beneficial'. But it actually doesn't. At best they are not significantly deadly.
The argument also neglects that living conditions did change during the period the data was gathered, often drastically. But one can not simply disconsider this in the way they are doing this, unless one wants to deceive of course.
The argument that vaccines work is more or less the following. Certain molecules are associated with 'immunity'. Now they go and inject the vaccine. If the probands have those molecules after them in them after having had the vaccine, they will claim that the vaccine has immunized the probands successfully. This has a ring of logic to it, but it leaves a lot of questions unanswered that are assumed to have positive answers to them.
Vaccines have become a Myth since there inception. They made Jenner famous and governments forced populations to be vaccinated since then. Medical professionals are taught that vaccines saved the world. That Jenner is a 'hero of science', etc. Vaccination gets treated like a sacrament in this. If you take it you do that to protect your health and the health of others, etc. Many of those that believe this, get hysterical, if somebody is known to be 'unvaccinated'. The unvaccinated get blamed, when the vaccinated get sick. This has the marks of an irrational cult. It should also be considered that the number of vaccines given to people has grown exponentially over time. This went with a growth in chronic disease requiring perpetual medication. For every little problem there are pills now that help to manage them. That's lots of turn-over for this industry. So there is some conflict of interest as well.
Holocaust Revisionism is agnostic on vaccines of course. But people that are skeptical when it comes to Main Stream Historiography, naturally are prone to be skeptical on statements made by the medical establishment as well. Many anti-vaxxers are Health-Nazis, too. So from the Holocaust Believer perspective this can easily be associated with each other. But why should one care about this? The bulk of Holocaust Believers are people that will believe anything society or the establishment says.
@Whodunnit?
Slovakia was an early ally of NS-Germany.
The vast majority of people are not interested whether a detail of history is true or not. Even if they are interested that interest is secondary at best to them. And well, 'there are so many other problems that need attention' can't bother about something that happened about a generation ago. They are also not interested into debating with people that don't want to listen and think anyway. So they rather leave it there. They prefer to don't have additional conflicts with their neighbors. And for sure they don't want to be on some PC-enforcers watchlist.
Those talks by "Holocaust-Survivors" are much like a church setting. Some martyr talking to a crowd of people that want to hear a fascinating story. That his or her presence is actually contrary evidence to what is alleged doesn't matter. The story is emotional and that's actually what those stories are about. Then they also have a fluid definition of what 'Holocaust' means. It starts with Jews being deported and interned during world war two and then slides into them being 'put into gas chambers'. The story-line can change. What counts is them 'feelings'. If those can be induced in people, it becomes possible to manipulate the masses in the future. That's all that counts. It's irrelevant, if it is true or not, what counts is that people find it believable at least to some extent. If you can get them to believe absurd stuff, that's a bonus. If they feel ashamed or anxious for not believing you, the better.
Most religions will employ emotion as a device to instill attachment and receptiveness. It creates a 'togetherness' among them. The less genuine it is, the more emotion needs to be employed. The Catholics did do that with Martyr stories and stories of saints and also with the whole ritualism they are using. They know how important it is to control the culture. They also know that 'victimhood' conveys 'authority' to the (alleged) victims or those that claim to act on their behalf. Jews know that as well. In fact within the Kahal-system they have perfected this to the max.
That one is not 'legally permitted' to 'deny the Holocaust' should be stressed in public conversations. Perhaps people realize that this is a problem. But I've seen this being rationalized as well. 'If it wouldn't be bad, it wouldn't be banned'. I've also seen Holocaust Believers complaining that Holocaust Deniers use 'Holocaust Denial bans' as excuse not to argue against it. What can they do, if people don't say "it never happened", but instead say they lack belief in it, because there is no compelling evidence for this?
I mean, they find that acceptable when Atheists (Deity Deniers) argue like this. Why should "Holocaust Deniers" not be be allowed to do the same? Are supposedly gassed Jews, more important than God? That's exactly what it seems to be.
Anudda shoah!
A lot of people must have experienced the same. But did it have any effect? I don't see it.
