5 ms·
This conveniently ignores the other side of the coin where interests are aligned and it's the conspiracy theorists that are harmful (e.g. vaccine manufactures a
by hueving 8y ago
This conveniently ignores the other side of the coin where interests are aligned and it's the conspiracy theorists that are harmful (e.g. vaccine manufactures and autism).
All functioning economies have vested interests in things good and bad. The only thing a vested interest means is that scrutiny is needed on the actions of the vested parties.
- random4369 8y agoOn what planet is the jury out about vaccines and autism? There's not a single research paper suggesting a link between those. You are falsely conflating scientific consensus with public opinion.
- rohit2412 8y agoSO what about cell phone radiation and cancer, or maybe GMO food and cancer?
- EpicEng 8y agoWhat about that fiction?
- sincerely 8y agoa pretty informative read re: cell phones and cancer: https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/ https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-t... (as usual, article headline is clickbait, not chosen by writer, please do not judge the content based on the title)
- TeMPOraL 8y agoCould you do the TL;DR of that? I skimmed it, because it's the long-form type of read I hate (little meat, lots of unrelated stories). Is there anything there that stands up to the standard counterargument called "non-ionizing radiation"?
- zasz 8y agoI think hueving just meant to say that not every institution is corrupt, and the medical industry is good when it comes to vaccines. The vested interests, in this case doctors, are doing great, and the anti-vaxxers are bad.
- random4369 8y agoAgain, the jury was never out about vaccines, there's no scientific research claiming they are harmful. This scenario is not analogous to the grandparent post where scientific consensus is being actively manipulated by vested interests to delay regulatory action Doctors don't make vaccines. Pharmaceutical researchers do. And pharmaceutical manufacturers wouldn't blink twice before selling you drugs that they know are harmful, there's plenty of well covered precedent for that. It's not that the medical field is more or less moral, it's just that in the case of vaccines, they actually perform well with no significant side effects so there's no reason to engage in morally questionable business practices to sell them
- emodendroket 8y agoI've also read that vaccination is not a big moneymaker.
- tptacek 8y agoI can't really even understand what this comment is trying to say. Vaccines aren't harmful. But doctors don't make vaccines, pharma companies do. And pharma companies would gladly hurt you. Conclusion: ???.
- mannykannot 8y agoI think what is meant (from the post in question, not necessarily your summary): cui bono arguments are particularly ineffective for those claiming vaccines are harmful, because doctors, who generally consider vaccines to be very effective and mostly harmless, are not particularly financially vested in the continued use of vaccines (unlike the manufacturers, presumably.) If the use of vaccines was curtailed, doctors would arguably have more work.
- hueving 8y agoTo be clear, the point I'm making is that economic interests are aligned for vaccine manufactures to make vaccines and for people to take them. Just because both sides have a vested interest in taking them, there isn't suddenly an invalidation of all pro-vaccine research (e.g. everything that shows no link between vaccines and autism).