The burden on proof is on the one making claims against the scientific consensus. If they don't (they never do, or it never holds up), quack is 100% the right word.

But when the consensus is based upon for-profit goal-seeking corps that have engaged in successful regulatory capture, it is your duty to question it.

Why, pray tell, are the US's vax schedules so heavy compared to Europe? Are all their doctors quacks are is our medical system bought-and-sold by B-schoolers?

I know the answer and I doubt you're willing to even entertain the truth much less accept it. But I'd love to be wrong about that.

My wife's son is a doctor. He said he wouldn't go to 80% of his fellow med school graduates for care. Being good at memorizing does not make one a good doctor, even though it's essential.

> Why, pray tell, are the US's vax schedules so heavy compared to Europe? Are all their doctors quacks are is our medical system bought-and-sold by B-schoolers?

What are the differences in vaccination schedule that you're worried about? We need to be specific in these kinds of discussion. It may be true that there is no difference in vaccination schedules, but it may also be true that the countries you claim have different vaccination schedules are responding to local needs (vs. being worried about 'heavy' vaccination regimens).

> Why not provide a scientific argument instead of engaging in name-calling?

That's just the issue - where is the evidence for delaying vaccination? Why are we just assuming that what's worked for decades is only now ineffective and suboptimal without data?

> That's just the issue - where is the evidence for delaying vaccination? Why are we just assuming that what's worked for decades is only now ineffective and suboptimal without data?

Even if they provide no evidence, name-calling is the worst way to achieve any goal other than to embolden the support from their supporters.