4 ms·

>flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers Seriously. It hurts me to see the "anti-vaxxers" term thrown around so loosely. There are very legitimate reasons for being skepti

>flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers Seriously. It hurts me to see the "anti-vaxxers" term thrown around so loosely. There are very legitimate reasons for being skeptical of vaccine research. Events like this appear quite frequently [1]. It is not at all in the same league as "flat-earths". [1] https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/12/flaws-in-the-clinical-trials-for-gardasil-made-it-harder-to-properly-assess-safety.html https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/12/flaws-in-the-cl...

pintxo 9y ago
Assuming that "flat-earthers" potential to cause harm is fairly limited, but that "anti-vaxxers" potential to cause harm is rather significant - population immunity comes to mind - I would rather say it hurts me to see the "flat-earthers" term thrown around so loosely.
- pensivemood 9y ago
  If anti-vaxxers potenial to cause harm is significant, the "pro-vaxxers" potential to cause harm is significant too. Try another argument.
eksemplar 9y ago
We had a huge HPV debate in Denmark in 2017 because of the problems surrounding it, but as usually it turned out all the fearmongering was completely unfounded and that the vaccine was much safer than the alternative. Flatearthers are harmless. I’m not even completely convinced they are not just collectively trolling us. Anti-vaxxers mean while are responsible for weakening herd immunity in western civilization and by doing so, the killing of hundreds of people who got sick and died because of it. The measles were basically extinct, now they are even killing people in countries with low amounts of anti-vaxxers. And why? Because a group of stupid people got together on Facebook and decided they wanted to create a version of reality where vaccines were evil. Vaccines have side effects. Not taking them, however, has much worse effects. Worst case means you’re quite literally murdering people who can’t survive neither the vaccines nor the disease, best case is things like the HPV were it’s just you or your children getting completely avoidable cancer (still extremely tragic). Hell, even Donald Trump has done far less lasting harm than anti-vaxxers.
- pensivemood 9y ago
  What you are starting, is a different debate. This is the issue with this topic. People usually have a hard time differentiating the subtleties involved. Hence could be easily mislead. What I was arguing is that, there are valid reasons to question the validity of vaccine research. But right now, every one who question the research or application of any single vaccine is labeled an anti-vaxxer and is collectively attacked/ridiculed, and considered to be in the same league as flatearthers. This end up being a situation where there is less and less incentive to put the required effort into safety of vaccines (because there is a huge negative stigma in questioning the safety of a vaccine), that are used to inoculate generation after generation of human beings. What could go wrong. Right? >Worst case means you’re quite literally murdering people who can’t survive neither the vaccines nor the disease, best case is things like the HPV were it’s just you or your children getting completely avoidable cancer (still extremely tragic). So you are telling me that if I don't get vaccines, I ll literally murder a bunch of people. Or I ll get cancer or die of a vaccine preventable disease. Right? If that is so, flawless logic. Actually the utter stupidity of these kinds of arguments put forward by pro-vaccine people is one of the biggest reasons one can start questioning the safety and necessity of vaccines.

pintxo 9y ago

Assuming that "flat-earthers" potential to cause harm is fairly limited, but that "anti-vaxxers" potential to cause harm is rather significant - population immunity comes to mind - I would rather say it hurts me to see the "flat-earthers" term thrown around so loosely.

pensivemood 9y ago
If anti-vaxxers potenial to cause harm is significant, the "pro-vaxxers" potential to cause harm is significant too. Try another argument.

eksemplar 9y ago

We had a huge HPV debate in Denmark in 2017 because of the problems surrounding it, but as usually it turned out all the fearmongering was completely unfounded and that the vaccine was much safer than the alternative. Flatearthers are harmless. I’m not even completely convinced they are not just collectively trolling us. Anti-vaxxers mean while are responsible for weakening herd immunity in western civilization and by doing so, the killing of hundreds of people who got sick and died because of it. The measles were basically extinct, now they are even killing people in countries with low amounts of anti-vaxxers. And why? Because a group of stupid people got together on Facebook and decided they wanted to create a version of reality where vaccines were evil. Vaccines have side effects. Not taking them, however, has much worse effects. Worst case means you’re quite literally murdering people who can’t survive neither the vaccines nor the disease, best case is things like the HPV were it’s just you or your children getting completely avoidable cancer (still extremely tragic). Hell, even Donald Trump has done far less lasting harm than anti-vaxxers.

pensivemood 9y ago
What you are starting, is a different debate. This is the issue with this topic. People usually have a hard time differentiating the subtleties involved. Hence could be easily mislead. What I was arguing is that, there are valid reasons to question the validity of vaccine research. But right now, every one who question the research or application of any single vaccine is labeled an anti-vaxxer and is collectively attacked/ridiculed, and considered to be in the same league as flatearthers. This end up being a situation where there is less and less incentive to put the required effort into safety of vaccines (because there is a huge negative stigma in questioning the safety of a vaccine), that are used to inoculate generation after generation of human beings. What could go wrong. Right? >Worst case means you’re quite literally murdering people who can’t survive neither the vaccines nor the disease, best case is things like the HPV were it’s just you or your children getting completely avoidable cancer (still extremely tragic). So you are telling me that if I don't get vaccines, I ll literally murder a bunch of people. Or I ll get cancer or die of a vaccine preventable disease. Right? If that is so, flawless logic. Actually the utter stupidity of these kinds of arguments put forward by pro-vaccine people is one of the biggest reasons one can start questioning the safety and necessity of vaccines.