Why is it not OK to question science orthodoxy? I don’t think as many “anti-vax fear mongerers” are as “anti-vax” as you think. Many (most?) people that are l

Why is it not OK to question science orthodoxy? I don’t think as many “anti-vax fear mongerers” are as “anti-vax” as you think. Many (most?) people that are labeled as “anti-vax” actually believe things like: 1. Giving the MMR to infants is potentially highly problematic until circa 18 months old 2. The default position is to wish not to inject organomercury and other potential toxins (of which knowledge is necessarily limited) into your blood 3. The annual flu vaccine’s efficacy is dubious in the very best case, and actually leads to weakened immune system in the most likely case 4. It’s not OK to inject material from aborted human fetuses (don’t argue with me - if you don’t believe me, just ask the scientist who created the Rubella vaccine... or read the paper, or watch the interview with him where he says this himself) So, it’s not that “anti-vax” people disbelieve in the idea of vaccines, as much as it is that they don’t blindly trust unproven science to the point of willingly injecting fetal material and toxic chemicals into themselves and their children. Certain vaccines, no doubt, have a place in society, but: 1. Nobody should be forced to inject anything into themselves (esp difficult to imagine a presumably liberal professor, who presumably supports a woman’s “right to choose” because it’s “her body”, having a different stance on this) 2. Let’s not hype up all vaccines, just because some of them work well - that’s not how science works