RE: The Truth about Vaccines:A quick refutation
May 3, 2017 at 3:45 pm
(This post was last modified: May 3, 2017 at 3:47 pm by FatAndFaithless.)
(May 3, 2017 at 3:43 pm)alpha male Wrote:(May 3, 2017 at 3:29 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I don't see how this is so hard for you. C_L's decision to not get the vaccine was not based on the science of the vaccine - her decision did not take a stance on it either way, in fact she already knew it is an effective vaccine against HPV and thus cervical cancer.
I think her decision was "wrong" because like you said, you can't account for everything someone might possibly do in their life and people are fallible. But this has nothing to do with the science of the vaccine.
I don't see how this is so hard for you.
In my experience, people who choose to skip recommended vaccines for themselves or their children are called anti-vaxxers. It doesn't matter whether they do so because they believe the autism theory, or just because they think the risk of exposure is so low that it's not worth the risk of any side effects. This is the first I've heard that distinction, and it feels ad hoc to me. But, I don't follow this closely, so if I'm wrong about that, give me some links showing it.
For fucks sake alpha, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're so focused on the label that we've gotten away from the topic of the vaccines themselves.
I don't care what you choose to call anti-vax or not anti-vax. That's not what this thread is about. It's about the safety and efficacy of vaccines. If you're so desperate to get a win that you want me to say "Oh yes, alpha has the true definition of 'anti-vax'", then fine, let's go with your definition, though I doubt C_L would agree with you lumping her into the 'anti-vax' camp.
Can we get back to the topic of the thread? Fucking hell it's like pulling teeth with you.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
- Thomas Jefferson