3 ms·

> Consider for a moment that the "antivaxxers" are correct, that there is enormous bias in our medical, pharmaceutical, and media establishments in favor of vac

> Consider for a moment that the "antivaxxers" are correct, that there is enormous bias in our medical, pharmaceutical, and media establishments in favor of vaccine safety. Could you really expect a reliable source on the subject if this were the case? I'm sorry, but this is just classic conspiracy theory thinking. "The very absence of evidence that I'm right is proof that I'm right."

twofornone 5y ago
The point is that it is borderline disingenuous to ask for a source when the allegation is that the sources are deeply biased in favor of their own consistent and pervasive "safe and effective" propaganda. I'm not alleging that this proof of anything.
- hatware 5y ago
  Even if you spell it out for them, something tells me this person will keep calling you names, and finding every excuse not to question how they got to "believing" what they do.
  - tharne 5y ago
    I'm the one who originally asked for a source - there was no name calling, nor should there be. If someone is going to make a bold claim about something generally considered to be safe, actually causing a significant number of injuries, it's irresponsible not to provide a source.
    - hatware 5y ago
      The name-calling wasn't referring to you. I'm pretty clearly referring to the person who threw out "conspiracy theory thinking" as if that was helping anything. For what it's worth: Sometimes there isn't a source. It will behoove you to entertain an idea without demanding that someone provide a source that you approve of. You can check VAERS yourself. Asking for sources on something that is so publicly available is... weird.
- FireBeyond 5y ago
  Antivaxxers rail against all vaccines. Your "less than five years testing" straw man is problematic when they have issues with polio and smallpox vaccines, MMR, etc., some of which have been around nearly half a century. Being honest, NO amount of testing would be an acceptable amount/duration for a significant portion of that group.

twofornone 5y ago

The point is that it is borderline disingenuous to ask for a source when the allegation is that the sources are deeply biased in favor of their own consistent and pervasive "safe and effective" propaganda. I'm not alleging that this proof of anything.

hatware 5y ago
Even if you spell it out for them, something tells me this person will keep calling you names, and finding every excuse not to question how they got to "believing" what they do.
- tharne 5y ago
  I'm the one who originally asked for a source - there was no name calling, nor should there be. If someone is going to make a bold claim about something generally considered to be safe, actually causing a significant number of injuries, it's irresponsible not to provide a source.
  - hatware 5y ago
    The name-calling wasn't referring to you. I'm pretty clearly referring to the person who threw out "conspiracy theory thinking" as if that was helping anything. For what it's worth: Sometimes there isn't a source. It will behoove you to entertain an idea without demanding that someone provide a source that you approve of. You can check VAERS yourself. Asking for sources on something that is so publicly available is... weird.
FireBeyond 5y ago
Antivaxxers rail against all vaccines. Your "less than five years testing" straw man is problematic when they have issues with polio and smallpox vaccines, MMR, etc., some of which have been around nearly half a century. Being honest, NO amount of testing would be an acceptable amount/duration for a significant portion of that group.