4 ms·

This is a great example because (1) is not universally true and (2) is a caricature of what anti-vaxxers claim. Anti-vaxxers are probably incorrect, but you ar

This is a great example because (1) is not universally true and (2) is a caricature of what anti-vaxxers claim. Anti-vaxxers are probably incorrect, but you are also the victim of a misinformation campaign. Limiting them doesn't help you get better information.

stjohnswarts 7y ago
1 is so close to true that it's a basically harmless statement. 2 is flat out true, anti-vaxxers have no scientific basis for their claims and they are essentially murdering people including small kids. so yeah 2 is just as ridiculous as was states.
- tomp 7y ago
  “Close to true” is still false. The medical community isn’t doing itself any favours (with regards to their credibility) by espousing false “almost truths”. The fact is that vaccines are not (100%) safe (no medical procedure is) - it’s just that the tiny risk vs huge reward makes them worth it.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  It's possible for anti-vaxxers to simultaneously be a net harm to children while having reasonable concerns about some aspects of our current best practices regarding vaccines. Regardless, dismissing them and calling them murderers doesn't seem helpful towards stopping them or addressing their fears.
- tathougies 7y ago
  > 1 is so close to true that it's a basically harmless statement. It is indeed a very dangerous statement, because it leads the scientifically illiterate to think that they don't need to speak frankly with their doctor for health advice. For example, your 'harmless' statement led to my brother incorrectly receiving the MMR vaccine. You see, he has hemophilia ,which is a contra-indication to receive the vaccine. Hemophilia is relatively common enough (because, according to the CDC, any blood clotting disorder that extends bleeding time, is a contraindication for MMR). He ended up having severe seizures as a child. Or moreover, neither my daughter nor I should (or should have, in my case) receive the MMR vaccine as infants due to a family history of sometimes severe immune issues. These are also relatively common conditions. I'm not an anti-vaxxer, BTW. I'm just following CDC recommendations, to the T: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/should-not-vacc.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/should-not-vacc.html Neither of this means that most people should receive MMR. But not everyone should. MMR is not 100% safe. No vaccine is, even if the general benefits outweigh the cons.
ben_w 7y ago
Thanks for encouraging me to be more precise in my examples. Looking at the rest of this thread, I can see my mistake. Ironically, I thought this would be a better choice than a Brexit/the EU example.

stjohnswarts 7y ago

1 is so close to true that it's a basically harmless statement. 2 is flat out true, anti-vaxxers have no scientific basis for their claims and they are essentially murdering people including small kids. so yeah 2 is just as ridiculous as was states.

tomp 7y ago
“Close to true” is still false. The medical community isn’t doing itself any favours (with regards to their credibility) by espousing false “almost truths”. The fact is that vaccines are not (100%) safe (no medical procedure is) - it’s just that the tiny risk vs huge reward makes them worth it.
Consultant32452 7y ago
It's possible for anti-vaxxers to simultaneously be a net harm to children while having reasonable concerns about some aspects of our current best practices regarding vaccines. Regardless, dismissing them and calling them murderers doesn't seem helpful towards stopping them or addressing their fears.
tathougies 7y ago
> 1 is so close to true that it's a basically harmless statement. It is indeed a very dangerous statement, because it leads the scientifically illiterate to think that they don't need to speak frankly with their doctor for health advice. For example, your 'harmless' statement led to my brother incorrectly receiving the MMR vaccine. You see, he has hemophilia ,which is a contra-indication to receive the vaccine. Hemophilia is relatively common enough (because, according to the CDC, any blood clotting disorder that extends bleeding time, is a contraindication for MMR). He ended up having severe seizures as a child. Or moreover, neither my daughter nor I should (or should have, in my case) receive the MMR vaccine as infants due to a family history of sometimes severe immune issues. These are also relatively common conditions. I'm not an anti-vaxxer, BTW. I'm just following CDC recommendations, to the T: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/should-not-vacc.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/should-not-vacc.html Neither of this means that most people should receive MMR. But not everyone should. MMR is not 100% safe. No vaccine is, even if the general benefits outweigh the cons.

ben_w 7y ago

Thanks for encouraging me to be more precise in my examples. Looking at the rest of this thread, I can see my mistake. Ironically, I thought this would be a better choice than a Brexit/the EU example.