I don’t think as many “anti-vax fear mongerers” are as “anti-vax” as you think.
Many (most?) people that are labeled as “anti-vax” actually believe things like:
1. Giving the MMR to infants is potentially highly problematic until circa 18 months old
2. The default position is to wish not to inject organomercury and other potential toxins (of which knowledge is necessarily limited) into your blood
3. The annual flu vaccine’s efficacy is dubious in the very best case, and actually leads to weakened immune system in the most likely case
4. It’s not OK to inject material from aborted human fetuses (don’t argue with me - if you don’t believe me, just ask the scientist who created the Rubella vaccine... or read the paper, or watch the interview with him where he says this himself)
So, it’s not that “anti-vax” people disbelieve in the idea of vaccines, as much as it is that they don’t blindly trust unproven science to the point of willingly injecting fetal material and toxic chemicals into themselves and their children.
Certain vaccines, no doubt, have a place in society, but:
1. Nobody should be forced to inject anything into themselves (esp difficult to imagine a presumably liberal professor, who presumably supports a woman’s “right to choose” because it’s “her body”, having a different stance on this)
2. Let’s not hype up all vaccines, just because some of them work well - that’s not how science works
Pro-vaccine people are the irrational ones that dismiss science. They call people terrorists, threaten jail and removal of children from parents among many other statements intended to instill fear.
Amazing how many people delude themselves that they’re “thinking different” while actually engaging in mass groupthink.
Plenty of other topics are similarly taboo, but I won’t list them here — I’ll probably get plenty of downvotes just for this post!!
The guy is literally profiting over increasing the death rate of children.
I have posted links to real data, doctors, scientists and papers before and all of it is rejected because of some reason.
It's not a fight I am up for right now.
I recommend doing a search for CDC vaccine doctor witness 2019. I am sure you (or someone else) will come back here to accuse me of something anyways.
Yes, I am jaded, it's disgusting how unscientific people get when you question vaccine safety. (even though billions have been paid out in damages caused by vaccines... sigh, yes billions)
Edit: If you want to hear from a very respected doctor who has studied the science behind vaccines and won't take another vaccine ever again, look up Dr. Suzanne Humphries. Most people won't actually listen to the data she presents, but just attack her out of spite and fear.
If you do not understand this, I can see how you might receive criticisms and feel they are unfair. But deploy an actual credible source of information, and not someone's opinion, and see the difference it makes.
Just because the ideal is that scientists are about the truth, doesn't mean that is what happens.
Edit: There's not been one single peer reviewed double blind test done on the efficacy of vaccines or parachutes.
Hell, this one was peer reveiwed, double blind _and_ and done with twins.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2871241/
And that's just one of thousands of examples.
You misread something. Your link is about "adverse reactions", my statement was about "efficacy".
>There's not been one single peer reviewed double blind test done on the _efficacy_ of vaccines
1 minute of googling.
Notice the results from the study in Asia: (your link)
>"25 (2.5%) of 1017 infants assigned to receive vaccine and 20 (2.0%) of 1018 assigned to receive placebo had a serious adverse event within 14 days of any dose.
The most frequent serious adverse event was pneumonia (vaccine 12 [1.2%]; placebo 15 [1.5%])."
The infants getting the vaccine vs placebo within 14 days had almost identical results.
The phrase "side effects" is not anywhere in my quote.
As to your other point, there are studies done for -every- approved vaccine. You aren't just wrong, you could scarcely be more wrong if you tried.
* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20692031
* https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...
It was not hard to find these, and yes they cover efficacy. Please stop spreading misinformation, especially when it can cost lives.
I looked at the test in a previous comment above, the results between placebo and vaccine are similar.
There were no controls on _any_ of these tests on who was exposed to the disease.
The second link says they had an "immunogenic response" (the only tests ever done for vaccines) but then ends with this:
>... vaccine was ineffective at reducing the natural infection rate in semi-immune African adults.
Monsanto effects on scientists brought before the courts:
https://newspunch.com/monsanto-lied-bullied-scientists-hide-...
>Wisner, who said the trial would include commentary from 10 current or former Monsanto employees, also read aloud internal corporate documents obtained during the case. In response to one critical study about glyphosate exposure, Donna Farmer, product protection lead, wrote in an email: “How do we combat this?”[0]
Peer reviewed journals do not defend or protect studies that are never published in the first place.
[0] baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/41-Internal-Email-from-2008-Monsanto-Executive-Long-Aware-of-Glyphosate-Link-to-non-Hodgkin-Lymphoma.pdf
You do not deserve to complain about not wanting a fight when you behave in such a way.
> Peer reviewed journals do not defend or protect studies that are never published in the first place.
Obviously. That's why studies which are not published in quality journals are not considered credible by the scientific community.
You ever talk to a flat-earther? Or an Obama birther? How about a climate change denier? If you aren't willing to pay much attention all of these positions can be defended. But as soon as you ask for a credible source, you get the same thing you tried earlier "I don't want to fight, I just want to spread BS freely." If they do deploy some sort of source and you show them what's wrong with it, they just move on, exactly like you tried to do multiple times in this thread.
Nobody gets to be right all the time, so I don't blame anyone who doesn't have enough time/interest to educate themselves for falling for these ideas. Where it becomes pitiful however, is when someone is shown over and over again and they do nothing but dig in and move on, instead of accepting when they got it wrong.
If your insistence ever successfully convinces someone not to vaccinate their child, who then goes on to needlessly spread infections in their school, then you can no longer say that your ignorance is harmless.
In my meager experience most people like you will just dig in further and further until the day they die. Not all though. Continue to vigorously defend your ignronace if you want - it's your choice, but you can't say no one ever tried to tell you better. Whatever harm you manage to cause with your position, you fought hard to keep causing it.
In the video link below the interviewer asks: "Is there a danger vaccinating populations? As we do today?"
https://youtu.be/BpC0Tbb3diI?t=394 (link is directly to the question)
The doctor being interviewed is someone who is medically qualified to study this subject, and has spent significant time studying vaccines. I think she has a scientifically valid point.
Why do you believe she is wrong?
> it's an appeal to authority
You are misusing the phrase "appeal to authority." Citing a published paper is absolutely NOT an appeal to authority, it is the polar opposite, and the distinction between those two things is the fundamental property of the scientific method.
With published papers, you don't have to trust in authority because the methodology and data are right there to be examined by all. The peer review and credibility are valuable and have weight because anyone caught falsifying data would lose their entire career in an instant. This is also why we don't just accept any old journal, as many simply allow anyone to publish as long as they pay.
To see an example of what an appeal to authority actually is, we need look no further then the second half of your comment. Linking to an interview of an expert in her field giving her opinion is what an appeal to authority actually is. Ironic.
You tried to paint an equivalence between our sources, but all you did was reveal that you do not understand how scientific progress is made. This is no longer an argument, at this point I'm educating you on what you should have learned before ever taking a stance on the subject of vaccinations.
If you can't even accept why credible, published papers carry more weight than appeals to authority, and can't understand what an appeal to authority is after it has been explained to you twice, then conversing with you is pointless.
It is a perfectly valid argument if you are saying it's _only_ method of scientific proof.
You know what? I'm done getting played. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, I and others gave you every opportunity to learn, but all you can do is dig in.
This is my last reply, if you want the last word that badly after this you can have it. If that is enough to let you think you won, then you can enjoy that too. Just remember that this subject is not like other debates in life.
You can let your stubbornness express itself most of the time quite harmlessly, but if you ever convince someone who doesn't know how to verify the science for themselves, the consequences are on you.
No joke, no exaggeration, you really are a bad person.
A homeopath(1) who cites two studies(2) published in a predatory journal, at least one of which was later retracted(3)?
I think you need to get your bullshit detector checked.
(1) http://web.archive.org/web/20130729083449if_/http://drsuzann...
(2) Mawson 2017 at http://drsuzanne.net/dr-suzanne-humphries-vaccines-vaccinati...
(3) https://retractionwatch.com/2017/05/08/retracted-vaccine-aut...
1) Is Dr. Suzanne Humphries a homeopath?
No she is not, yes she has training in it and yes she's removed it from her CV.
In this video she says "No, it [homeopathy] did not work"... summarizing her statement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLrqmvjrIjI#t=2m30s
2) Retracted paper
A retracted paper (a pilot study at that) from a journal is not proof against the paper's results. It's only proof that the paper was retracted.
Also, it looks like (from your link) it was retracted because of a "twitter storm"... not a scientific basis.
3.) Her actual views summarized pretty well:
Consider her scientific perspective in the video below on the topic of vaccines. (only 20 minutes, it's worth 1 viewing, even if you disagree in advance)
None of this is proof that her views are wrong, but they are clear signs that she is bad enough at anything science that she is not worth listening to.
So that plot twist has already occurred.
Meanwhile, the connection between gut disorders and autism has received very little study after his wacko paper was retracted. With the relatively sudden (ie, in the space of a generation) proliferation of HFCS and hydrogenated oils (one or the other of which is in - or at least was in - nearly everything that has more than 5 ingredients), it seems like a very legitimate target for research.
The fact that the vaccine connection has been debunked does not, as I understand it, also debunk the connection with gut disorders, which the other scientists had apparently independently observed and written about. People have been pointing this out for nearly 5 years now (ie, see [0]), but it seems that research is only now venturing out. People are terrified to be even vaguely associated with Wakefield, even if they don't share his conflict of interest or willingness to lie.
0: https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2014/04/30/blam...
In response to the link, blaming Wakefield seems counter-productive, we need to take a more nuanced approach to disagreement and avoid "throwing the baby [area of research] out with the bathwater [discredited hypothesis]". Seems like there's a socio-political problem that needs fixing there and blaming Wakefield for our response to his fraud seems to go too far.