2 ms·

I think it's unreasonable to assume the government is lying about vaccines because you would have to establish a rational reason for the government to do so. N

I think it's unreasonable to assume the government is lying about vaccines because you would have to establish a rational reason for the government to do so. Now the anti-vaxxer might say 'they are lying about vaccines not causing Autism' in which case that would be an irrational reason for lying. It would have to imply that governments around the world are solidly collaborating on the dangers of vaccines. This would not hold up to any scrutiny and is why anti-vaxx beliefs would be solidly irrational.

linuxftw 8y ago
> I think it's unreasonable to assume the government is lying about vaccines because you would have to establish a rational reason for the government to do so. Same reason as any: money. Pays well to ensure vaccines of dubious quality are fast-tracked [1]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-merck-gerberding/former-cdc-head-lands-vaccine-job-at-merck-idUSTRE5BK2K520091221 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-merck-gerberding/former-c...
mirimir 8y ago
I thought that I was being clear enough. But ... Why did the government lie about the health impacts of fallout from above-ground nuclear weapons testing? It's because they felt that above-ground tests were necessary for weapons' development. Also because they cost less. Why would the government lie about the risk of vaccine injury? Because they want people to vaccinate themselves and their children. To protect the public health. As a wild-ass guess, the public-health benefits of universal vaccination are likely great enough that appreciable injury risk is acceptable. But individuals don't really see evidence for public-health benefits. All they ever see are their kids being injured. So it's in the government's interest to reassure people. But what dominates social media are reports of injuries.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  You're falsely equating two scenarios and saying that since the government lied in one heinous act, that means the government is lying about something entirely different as well. Your point about the government lying about vaccines for the sake of public health is almost irrelevant, because that standard is applicable to everything the government does. Are our roads actually paved using the bones of children? No one knows, but the government would have a vested interest in lying about it because roads are important for American society. You could use that logic to question everything and anything, but it doesn't say whether or not your base proposition is actually logically sound. It doesn't help that the anti-vaxxer movement is a global one, not just an American one. Which means you would again have to consider somehow there's a global conspiracy surrounding vaccines in order to downplay the injuries they do to people. Now is this to say vaccines don't have potentially harmful side effects? Well no, anyone that has read the research recognizes this fact. Including myself, considering I had an adverse reaction to vaccines as a child that was almost deadly. However the anti-vaxxer movement is not nor had it ever been about discussing the rational and factual effects of vaccines both positive and negative, it's been about perpetuating bunk science or conspiracies for the sake of an illogical set of beliefs.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    I do agree with you about risk vs benefit for vaccines. It's totally obvious that widespread vaccination has vastly improved human health. No question about it. However, as you say, there are occasional adverse reactions to vaccination. And how that's perceived is very different for individuals vs public-health systems. Public-health systems focus on reductions in epidemic risk. And they address adverse reactions by compensating those affected. But individuals see only the adverse reactions. In themselves or their kids, if they're unlucky. Or in news from family and friends, or in news reports. Statistics about effects of mass vaccination on public health are just too abstract. And on top of all that, as I've argued, governments have often lied. And do lie. For many reasons. The EPA is lying on a huge scale, now, in rolling back various protective rules.
  - linuxftw 8y ago
    > considering I had an adverse reaction to vaccines as a child that was almost deadly. Reported to VAERS? Compensated by NVIC? Most likely not since it's almost impossible to get the average doctor to report into VAERS.

linuxftw 8y ago

> I think it's unreasonable to assume the government is lying about vaccines because you would have to establish a rational reason for the government to do so. Same reason as any: money. Pays well to ensure vaccines of dubious quality are fast-tracked [1]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-merck-gerberding/former-cdc-head-lands-vaccine-job-at-merck-idUSTRE5BK2K520091221 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-merck-gerberding/former-c...

mirimir 8y ago

I thought that I was being clear enough. But ... Why did the government lie about the health impacts of fallout from above-ground nuclear weapons testing? It's because they felt that above-ground tests were necessary for weapons' development. Also because they cost less. Why would the government lie about the risk of vaccine injury? Because they want people to vaccinate themselves and their children. To protect the public health. As a wild-ass guess, the public-health benefits of universal vaccination are likely great enough that appreciable injury risk is acceptable. But individuals don't really see evidence for public-health benefits. All they ever see are their kids being injured. So it's in the government's interest to reassure people. But what dominates social media are reports of injuries.

fzeroracer 8y ago
You're falsely equating two scenarios and saying that since the government lied in one heinous act, that means the government is lying about something entirely different as well. Your point about the government lying about vaccines for the sake of public health is almost irrelevant, because that standard is applicable to everything the government does. Are our roads actually paved using the bones of children? No one knows, but the government would have a vested interest in lying about it because roads are important for American society. You could use that logic to question everything and anything, but it doesn't say whether or not your base proposition is actually logically sound. It doesn't help that the anti-vaxxer movement is a global one, not just an American one. Which means you would again have to consider somehow there's a global conspiracy surrounding vaccines in order to downplay the injuries they do to people. Now is this to say vaccines don't have potentially harmful side effects? Well no, anyone that has read the research recognizes this fact. Including myself, considering I had an adverse reaction to vaccines as a child that was almost deadly. However the anti-vaxxer movement is not nor had it ever been about discussing the rational and factual effects of vaccines both positive and negative, it's been about perpetuating bunk science or conspiracies for the sake of an illogical set of beliefs.
- mirimir 8y ago
  I do agree with you about risk vs benefit for vaccines. It's totally obvious that widespread vaccination has vastly improved human health. No question about it. However, as you say, there are occasional adverse reactions to vaccination. And how that's perceived is very different for individuals vs public-health systems. Public-health systems focus on reductions in epidemic risk. And they address adverse reactions by compensating those affected. But individuals see only the adverse reactions. In themselves or their kids, if they're unlucky. Or in news from family and friends, or in news reports. Statistics about effects of mass vaccination on public health are just too abstract. And on top of all that, as I've argued, governments have often lied. And do lie. For many reasons. The EPA is lying on a huge scale, now, in rolling back various protective rules.
- linuxftw 8y ago
  > considering I had an adverse reaction to vaccines as a child that was almost deadly. Reported to VAERS? Compensated by NVIC? Most likely not since it's almost impossible to get the average doctor to report into VAERS.