Because they have been conned, basically.
Gid M-K; Health Nerd
1391

No. Just no. I’m on your side on this one, but my children had the critical thinking skill to simply reject material like this long before they hit puberty.

Let’s start with the basics here. Our now adult children were vaccinated, on schedule, and we will recommend that when they have children they do the same. I am old enough to have known and worked with polio survivors, and to have had as a child diseases now immunized against, which could have permanently damaged my heart and eyesight. My parents told the stories of classmates of theirs who did not survive illnesses routinely immunized against today. I do not want a child, or grandchild, of mine, to die of or be maimed by a disease which can be vaccinated against, and am willing to accept the 1 in a million odds of dying or being maimed by the vaccine.

When I was maybe 5 or 6 years old, my younger sister had an adverse reaction to a routine vaccine, and her upper arm swelled like a balloon. Our excellent pediatrician understood what had happened, was matter of fact that this sometimes happened, and said that for the rest of that series she’d need to use a different (and I assume more expensive) variant of the vaccine. The response was matter of fact, honest, and to the point. That is what a professional response to a (minor) adverse vaccine reaction looks like.

Roughly a generation ago, vaccines were reformulated to decrease the amount of antigen and increase the amount of adjuvant(s), for reasons that at the time I trusted the vaccine establishment and assumed were based in science. There are a number of confounding variables here, such as the practice of dosing children with Tylenol, the increasing number of vaccines, and giving more of the vaccines on the same day. However, within a few years of these changes, numerous anecdotes of a new type of adverse reaction correlated to the administration of vaccines were reported. The reaction of the vaccine establishment was to deny any association with vaccines, to fail to record the events, to fail to compensate the events (which to be honest the causation of is completely unclear), and to “circle the wagons” rather than responding with scientific inquiry. The discredited scientist in England may have been a bad actor, but putting his head on a pole was not an act of science, it was an act of politics clearly signalling that scientists may not study adverse vaccine reactions.

More recently I’ve seen numerous articles based on logical fallacies such as converse arguments or equating absence of evidence with evidence of absence, claiming that it has been proven that vaccines are not the cause of this widely anecdotally reported new class of adverse reactions, and labeling anyone who says otherwise as a scoundrel or worse. This outbound messaging is not the work of honorable scientists, which would at least start with data and reason from the data to conclusions. No, this outbound messaging is emotional appeals made to look like fact, but is simply spin, or if you will, propaganda. It seems to me that the vaccine establishment has panicked and rather than telling the truth has resorted to somewhere between logical fallacy and just plain lying in a Machiavellian way to get people to vaccinate.

As an educated person, this has caused me to lose all trust in the vaccine establishment. I’m surprised more educated people haven’t seen through the nonsense being spun for us. And that the establishment thinks we’re so gullible as to not apply a critical thinking filter to everything we read, especially in this day and age.

Back to the article at hand. No, I have not been conned. Not by an anti vaccine movement which I think are a bunch of idiots, who jumped to cause that mercury (thimoseral) was the problem when there was no chance it could be, and are jumping to the next cause, and the one after that. Reality is that the widely anecdotally reported adverse reaction simply isn’t understood (or the way I like to say it is cannot possibly occur given the basic theory underlying both the practice of medicine and medical research today) and therefore it isn’t possible to do science other than simple statistics linking the two, much less establishing causation.

But in eight points, spun well, and appearing as fact, there are no facts. Just talking points, and a few references to scientific abstracts which seem to me to be written for non scientists to read. I agree with you that we should vaccinate our children, but am horrified that the argument to do so is spin rather than based in hard data.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.