11 ms·

Im not sure honestly and don't care. The way things were handled created -many- new vaccine sceptics and that will have a lasting impact for many years to come

by iinnPP 3y ago

Im not sure honestly and don't care. The way things were handled created -many- new vaccine sceptics and that will have a lasting impact for many years to come. When you tell people their concerns of a specific vaccine are invalid and then claim they are anti-vaccine, you are lying. Why would anyone paying attention then trust you? Also, some high ranking politicians are on record stating they wouldn't take a vaccine if it was created while Trump was president. Nobody ia dismissing their entire campaign based on these statements. Thanks for picking one point of my long post and ignoring the other points btw.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Im not sure Because its not true.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
dllthomas 3y ago
My understanding is that he's been anti-MMR since long before COVID and that's a big part of what most people mean when they're concerned that someone is "antivax" - at least those with a memory that goes back more than 5 minutes.
- iinnPP 3y ago
  So he is against specific vaccines but not all vaccines.
  - dllthomas 3y ago
    Against specific vaccines opposition to which has been leading to measles outbreaks. I think counting that against him is important, and again it's usually what people have meant when they've said "antivax" before COVID.
    - logicchains 3y ago
      He believes the net harm from the MMR vaccines is greater than the net harm from measles, and has provided the data to back this up.
      - dllthomas 3y ago
        And that belief is a concern if he is wrong. AFAIK, he is wrong, so I am concerned. AFAICT his "data" is the same fabricated "MMR causes autism" data as the other anti-vaxers. If you know of something he's been pushing that's not downstream of Wakefield (or even evidence of his meaningfully revising his opinion around the Lancet's retraction) I'll give it consideration, but there's a limit to how many times I'm interested in relitigating the same questions without meaningful new data.
    - iinnPP 3y ago
      [flagged]
detaro 3y ago
If someone is claiming "concerns" about vaccines for >15 years and is regularly found lying, what else should you call them? Because he hasn't just had "a problem with a specific vaccine".
- logicchains 3y ago
  What was he found to be lying about?
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > What was he found to be lying about? Pretty much everything he’s ever said about any vaccine, but in another branch of this thread I’ve done a short list of some of his recent lies about COVID-19 vaccines, MMR vaccines, tetanus vaccines, and flu vaccines. (Perhaps the star of that list being the lie about MMR vaccines used to discourage black people from taking COVID-19 vaccines.) Which all also underlines that the claim that he is against “a specific vaccine” is…not accurate. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36017401 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36017401

by iinnPP 3y ago

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Im not sure Because its not true.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

dllthomas 3y ago

My understanding is that he's been anti-MMR since long before COVID and that's a big part of what most people mean when they're concerned that someone is "antivax" - at least those with a memory that goes back more than 5 minutes.

iinnPP 3y ago
So he is against specific vaccines but not all vaccines.
- dllthomas 3y ago
  Against specific vaccines opposition to which has been leading to measles outbreaks. I think counting that against him is important, and again it's usually what people have meant when they've said "antivax" before COVID.
  - logicchains 3y ago
    He believes the net harm from the MMR vaccines is greater than the net harm from measles, and has provided the data to back this up.
    - dllthomas 3y ago
      And that belief is a concern if he is wrong. AFAIK, he is wrong, so I am concerned. AFAICT his "data" is the same fabricated "MMR causes autism" data as the other anti-vaxers. If you know of something he's been pushing that's not downstream of Wakefield (or even evidence of his meaningfully revising his opinion around the Lancet's retraction) I'll give it consideration, but there's a limit to how many times I'm interested in relitigating the same questions without meaningful new data.
  - iinnPP 3y ago
    [flagged]

detaro 3y ago

If someone is claiming "concerns" about vaccines for >15 years and is regularly found lying, what else should you call them? Because he hasn't just had "a problem with a specific vaccine".

logicchains 3y ago
What was he found to be lying about?
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > What was he found to be lying about? Pretty much everything he’s ever said about any vaccine, but in another branch of this thread I’ve done a short list of some of his recent lies about COVID-19 vaccines, MMR vaccines, tetanus vaccines, and flu vaccines. (Perhaps the star of that list being the lie about MMR vaccines used to discourage black people from taking COVID-19 vaccines.) Which all also underlines that the claim that he is against “a specific vaccine” is…not accurate. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36017401 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36017401