See Serg97's comment. More or less than 28?

@GaryMysels Do you have any proof? Where's your evidence? It seems pretty unprofessional to claim that vaccines kill without citing any sources.

@GaryMysels My seven year old brother was recently vaccinated. He hasn't felt a single symptom. Certainly not death.

@CookieGoBrr WTF? I asked a question. What kind of proof do I need to ask a question?

@CookieGoBrr So your seven brothers constitute the entire world community?

@GaryMysels My seven brothers?? Dude. I have a seven year old brother. And fair point, but everyone I know right now is vaccinated, which is a couple hundred people. I'm not saying the entire human race will be fine, but my family certainly was.

@GaryMysels And I'm sorry I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that it would only save more than 28 or less than 28. Obviously less than 28. It's a needle prick. It's genuinely not that hard of a thing to live through. I was asking for proof that the vaccine would kill children. Not in like, a freak accident or anything, just a general vaccine killing a child.

@CookieGoBrr But it's NOT "just a needle prick." It's the clandestine ingredients, like graphene oxide and the other stuff that they put in but won't tell us about, and the host of adverse reactions, some very serious, like death, that many people suffer from the vaccine that is not a vaccine..

@GaryMysels And you keep saying that, but you still haven't cited any sources or given any proof. What you've just said is genuinely not true and if you want I can list at least two sites right now to prove that vaccines are mostly safe. You can't seem to link anything.

@CookieGoBrr LOL What have you linked? "I can list..." but you don't. Besides, nowhere did I say that vaccines are not "mostly safe.
[pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[nutritruth.org]
[pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[ambassadorlove.wordpress.com]

@GaryMysels Because you didn't ask. I wasn't trying to prove a point, I was arguing yours. First off, one of your sources is a Wix website, meaning that it likely wasn't made by an official group of recognized professionals. Reading what the actual website says, it's based on the rejected research of a generally frowned-upon scientist. It takes one Google search to see that the vial the scientist was studying had unknown origins meaning that it could've been tampered with or really anything else. The first website says that graphene oxide is in vaccines (which I wasn't denying, by the way) but there is as much done as scientifically possible to make it safer for people. The third tells about the effect of raw graphene oxide on human cells but isn't relevant because of how the first article mentioned how much they're doing to keep the vaccines safe. The last is an article written by Ariyana Love, someone who practices naturopathic medicine, which is, in fact, a psuedoscience. As far as I know (and I've dug for a while) she has no degree. Reading her take on something like a vaccine would be a waste of time. Sorry for the wall of text. Would you like any of my sources?