4 ms·
>...but the prominent voices in the movement almost certainly are aware of the invalidity of their claims. What do you object about these two medical doctors i
by RobertRoberts 8y ago
>...but the prominent voices in the movement almost certainly are aware of the invalidity of their claims.
What do you object about these two medical doctors issues with vaccines? I would consider them more prominent than you or I, so their opinion/knowledge should hold more weight than ours.
Yet, but the very limited standards set, they would be called "anti-vaxxers", even though Dr. Halverson provides vaccine services for children and familes.
Dr. Richard Halvorsen (England)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMs1ue8j9CM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMs1ue8j9CM
Dr. Suzanne Humphries (USA)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFQQOv-Oi6U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFQQOv-Oi6U
- daeken 8y agoNeither of these doctors have published a single paper relating to vaccination or immunity in general, according to PubMed. A Youtube presence does not an expert make.
- RobertRoberts 8y agoI don't think you watched the videos. Their facts and arguments are what matter. I didn't say they were "experts" with vaccines, I said they were more "prominent" than us, and I asked "what do _you_ object to?" from those videos. Arguing to authority is a logical fallacy any ways. Peer reviewed papers does not mean they are true. There are plenty of peer reviewed papers that disagree with each other or have results that are not reproducible. Edit: I recommend anyone that think "peer review" means that a paper is automatically true to research how the peer review process works and also the results. (there was a scandal this past year or so on peer reviewed papers, most of them medical papers)