The Truth about Vaccines:A quick refutation

[John V]

Ugh, C_L's decision had nothing to do with 'denying scientific evidence.'  You're so quick to grab onto anyone else who might've had made the same decision for themselves.  The fact that you view the HPV vaccine as a 'money grab' wavers kinda close to the wack anti-vax stuff, but I still wouldn't call you an "anti-vaxxer" because you've had and have had for your children other vaccines.  

Not sure what your fascination is with the label though.  I personally think you and C_L  made the wrong decision in not getting vaccinated, but neither of you seems to be dealing in the crazy ignorance and distrust for the scientific method that has come to characterize the anti-vaccination movement (and is what most people mean when they use the term 'anti-vaxxer').  Though, the whole 'preventing the disease with your behavior' strays close to some antiquated religious and social ideas that I find rather stupid.  You don't stop wearing a seatbelt just because you really, really trust the driver.

Why is the decision wrong? It seems to me that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too - saying that someone who goes against the scientific evidence is wrong for doing so, and yet not denying scientific evidence.

[FatAndFaithless]

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.

[John V]

So, your (F&F) position seems to be that a person isn't an anti-vaxxer if they forego a vaccine because they think the risk of exposure is low.

You don't seem to be getting this.  I think we should just discard that label since it appears to be hindering your ability to take part in this conversation.

I'm getting it. The point I was headed to is that, by your logic, once a vaccine has sufficiently reduced the chance of exposure to a particular virus, a person isn't an anti-vaxxer if they choose not to get/give their children the vaccine. I think most people on your side in this discussion would disagree, and do include those people as anti-vaxxers. 

But, a lot of them have done the same with Gardasil.

[FatAndFaithless]

You don't seem to be getting this.  I think we should just discard that label since it appears to be hindering your ability to take part in this conversation.

I'm getting it. The point I was headed to is that, by your logic, once a vaccine has sufficiently reduced the chance of exposure to a particular virus, a person isn't an anti-vaxxer if they choose not to get/give their children the vaccine. I think most people on your side in this discussion would disagree, and do include those people as anti-vaxxers. 

But, a lot of them have done the same with Gardasil.

Bolded mine.  Completely incorrect, as far as my argument, no idea where the hell you got the first half of that from.

An anti-vaxxer, as much as I can tell, is someone who denies the scientific evidence of the efficacy and safety of vaccines, usually as a treatment altogether. One can be fully aware of the merits, efficacy, and safety of a vaccine and still refuse to vaccinate for entirely different reasons. I would argue that person has made a gravely incorrect choice, they're being illogical or ridiculous or idiotic - but they aren't what we would normally call part of the "anti-vaccine" movement.

I don't know how much clearer I can make it. It's why I think you should stop focusing so much on the label.

[Catholic_Lady]

We can't fully trust our spouse?

Of course not. We can't fully trust ourselves either. We're fallible human beings.

Well, I do. I fully 100% trust my spouse not to cheat on me, and I know that I will never cheat on him. The marriage vows and giving yourselves to each other in marriage is all about that full trust. It's the most basic foundation of a healthy marriage.

[John V]

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.

[FatAndFaithless]

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.

[John V]

I'm getting it. The point I was headed to is that, by your logic, once a vaccine has sufficiently reduced the chance of exposure to a particular virus, a person isn't an anti-vaxxer if they choose not to get/give their children the vaccine. I think most people on your side in this discussion would disagree, and do include those people as anti-vaxxers. 

But, a lot of them have done the same with Gardasil.

Bolded mine.  Completely incorrect, as far as my argument, no idea where the hell you got the first half of that from.

An anti-vaxxer, as much as I can tell, is someone who denies the scientific evidence of the efficacy and safety of vaccines, usually as a treatment altogether.  One can be fully aware of the merits, efficacy, and safety of a vaccine and still refuse to vaccinate for entirely different reasons.  I would argue that person has made a gravely incorrect choice, they're being illogical or ridiculous or idiotic - but they aren't what we would normally call part of the "anti-vaccine" movement.

I don't know how much clearer I can make it.  It's why I think you should stop focusing so much on the label.

Where I got the first half? You said that CL isn't an anti-vaxxer for skipping gardasil because she thought she was unlikely to contact the virus. I'm extending that to a different situation, but the principle is exactly the same.

[FatAndFaithless]

Christ you're dishonest.

[John V]

Can we get back to the topic of the thread?  Fucking hell it's like pulling teeth with you.

Oh go fuck yourself. It takes two to tango. This is effectively saying, We shouldn't be discussing this...but I'm not leaving it without getting the last word in.    You're free to stop any time. It's not like I'll call you out on it once you quit.