These fucking lunatic people actually believe this. The distances they have strayed from the goals of "I have a dream" is incredible
(media.patriots.win)
RACIST LEFT
Comments (196)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
Add anti-vaxxers to that list.
There was no anti-vax movement in America prior to the rise of the internet. To your point, once the internet grew (1) idiots nucleated to each other, and (2) the Dunning-Kruger effect asserted itself, where scientifically-illiterate fools read conspiracy blogs and thought they knew as much as MD/PhD physicians.
Prior to the rise of the internet, the schedule had only 3 vaccines. In 1989 it jumped to 22 shots, today its 72 shots. People born prior to 1989 have a 12% chance of chonic disease, after 1989 its 54%.
source: Robert F. Kennedy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMH6hfwp__8
You need to look into vaccines past the third page.
What reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal do you propose? Unlike "climate change", there is a solid non-political scientific consensus favoring vaccination going back many decades.
A "scientific consensus" is not the same as actual testing. Just so you know where I'm coming from, I'm not what you might think of as an "anti-vaxxer." But I AM against vaccinating newborns for hepatitis, and giving them three mercury-infused vaccines at once while they're tiny, etc. These things have NOT been tested, and pharma companies are indemnified against loss from lawsuits. How does that make sense? The vaccines and number of vaccines they give now are not the same as the ones they gave when we were kids.
Are you arguing there are vaccines in use that were not subject to testing, clinical trials, and FDA approval prior to widespread adoption by the medical community? If you can prove this, don't waste time debating me or any other person. Start a class-action lawsuit and get rich.
For what it's worth, the CDC released a simple guide for the risks of thimerosal which may assuage some concerns.
I would disagree with indemnification, if true, but that's more a function of big government and political patronage than proof that vaccines are harmful. Any industry which can leverage the government to block lawsuits will, even if they make lace doilies much less medicines.
I know right, everyone should just take Bill Gates mandatory vaccines and stop questioning things. Don't they know that he's smarter than us and he just cares about keeping everyone safe?
Questioning Bill Gates, who has historically been a ruthless monopolist, and his attempt to enter the world of medicine and epidemiology is the right thing to do. He needs to prove his proposes cures work and aren't authoritarian by nature, just like anyone else.
Questioning vaccines themselves is psychosis.
Dunning-Kruger effect example #1.
Notice the criticism about using technical or even big words and the admitted poor understanding of exponential growth curves. Basically, this is a person claiming that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge".
You didn't write "exponential growth bell curve" in your original post. You wrote exponential growth curve. Exponential growth is how many natural phenomenon are plotted, including even non-natural phenomenon like certain financial interest calculations. It's a real thing.
There's also no straw man argument in my original post. There is zero peer-reviewed research in reputable scientific journals to bolster the anti-vaccination position. None. If it helps you, Infowars.com is not a scientific journal.
Arguing about sensationalization and the quality of media reporting is an area where we may find common ground, however.