"...I don't know who proved, to your satisfaction, that the polio vaccine was contaminated with SV40."
The CDC, by admitting they mandated the injection of contaminated vaccines into 90M American children.
And, while proof is something you can have in mathematics, it isn't something that exists in science. There is only evidence.
"...I think you could think a little less highly of your apparent monopoly on logic and the nature of humankind?"
Thanks for this! Sadly, logic is all I got, so I run with the ball in hand. It is all too easy to confuse one's abilities with what are most important, and I honestly appreciate criticism.
Nothing would more invalidate my efforts than vapid praise and echos of my own views.
"...you kinda lied to me, remember? When you posted that CDC page, and told me to debunk it because it proves your point? Then you turned around and said essentially "Nahhh I didn't really believe that, fooled you!"
I am continually impressed by your ability to subtly twist points to imbue your opposition's statements with indefensible positions they did not undertake.
I simply can't (and am not interested to) compete. This is why I rely on logic, facts, and data.
"When the history of the anti-vax movement is written, I doubt it will include public-relations professionals..."
This is the least believable statement you have made.
Srsly.
However, the utter incongruity of it with demonstrable fact means I can ignore it, and allow any consideration of your positions to simply recognize that they are consistent with this particular.
Should anyone delve into this conversation someday, they will see your facility with innuendo, insinuation, and dissemblance, and that characterization will stand out as exemplary of your purpose.
To confuse, distract, and prevent rational development of vaccination policy.
I will avail myself of the opportunity I am provided by your feint to point out that those most profiting from extant conditions are most resistant to changing those conditions.
The thrust of your argument is to maintain extant policy, and develop it along courses that profit pharmaceutical corporations most.
Ignoring the harm, belittling the victims, and ennobling the profiteers is part and parcel of that vein, injecting vitriol into the debate, just as pharmaceutical profiteers do toxic swill into the veins of their innocent victims.
No mere fact, or reason, supports that position, and therefore you seek to undermine both. I invite you to undertake either, that my 'apparent monopoly on logic' will be shattered.
The CDC didn't admit to mandating the polio vaccine. People can, and some few do, refuse to take the polio vaccine or have it administered to their children. The fact that the CDC recorded SV40 contamination (which, by the way, is still harmless, distrusting the CDC doesn't change that) does not make them responsible for it, and it doesn't showcase any coercion on their part to force families to take it.
I have had to stand by helpless as a patient refuses a vaccine for their child that I know they need. It is not a good feeling to know that that kid is at risk for a serious disease now. One my child and I will never get because we got vaccinated.
My central points haven't changed here. Vaccines are not the toxic swill they are made out to be, refusing them is dangerous and irresponsible, and their demonstrable safety and medical value shouldn't be ignored just because we don't like pharmaceutical companies.
I don't like pharmaceutical companies. This is not a defense of big pharma. It's a defense of the very real and palpable fact that vaccines prevent all manner of communicable diseases and are ultimately good for individual and public health. It is therefore my opinion that the anti-vax movement creates victims, and causes harm.
So no. The thrust of my argument isn't to maintain policies that profit big pharma (or even little pharma). I've not really concerned myself in this discourse with the fairness of the system that rewards these drug manufacturers with subsidies and astronomical profit from drugs that are cheap to produce.
What I've concerned myself with is the very, very poor logic, poor science, and willful ignorance of fact that leads people to refuse to vaccinate themselves and their families on the grounds that it causes autism, or 100+ food allergies, and many other dubious claims.
I get that this isn't a black and white issue. For profit companies will get money every time I vaccinate someone. They benefit from that. The patient also benefits, by never getting polio. I guess I'm just a little more comfortable than some with sitting in that place of conflict, of knowing that there are good and less good societal consequences that come with being a healthcare professional. In any case, I'm not willing to tell my kid it was worth it for him to get smallpox just so I could take a stand against pharmaceutical companies and regulators.
Also, dude. Come on. There is too such a thing as proof in science.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit