...emerging evidence that certain childhood illnesses are actually protective of disease later in life; examines the role of fever, the gut, and cellular fluid in immune health; argues that vaccination is an ineffective (and harmful) attempt to shortcut a complex immune response; and asserts that the medical establishment has engaged in an authoritarian argument that robs parents of informed consent.
Can you find a single doctor that spouts this nonsense without something like this on his resume?
Oh right, it’s giant conspiracy by the medical establishment. We also didn’t land on the moon, climate change isn’t real and the moon landing was faked. Derp.
Can you find a single doctor that spouts this nonsense without something like this on his resume?
Oh right, it’s giant conspiracy by the medical establishment. We also didn’t land on the moon, climate change isn’t real and the moon landing was faked. Derp.
Can you think a bit more objectively? Like global warming, there is always going to be an effort to discredit anyone who gets in the way of the agenda.
Objectively, you’re getting hustled. First it caused autism, we need more studies, more studies come in showing no link, so they move on to the next bullshit argument.
Science doesn’t have an agenda. You prove science wrong with more science. When you can’t, it’s not because of a conspiracy, it’s because you’re wrong.
You wrote that this guy argues that vaccines are ineffective and you have the audacity to tell me to be objective. Motherfucker who do you know that has polio?
Objectively, you’re getting hustled. First it caused autism, we need more studies, more studies come in showing no link, so they move on to the next bullshit argument.
Science doesn’t have an agenda. You prove science wrong with more science. When you can’t, it’s not because of a conspiracy, it’s because you’re wrong.
You wrote that this guy argues that vaccines are ineffective and you have the audacity to tell me to be objective. Motherfucker who do you know that has polio?
You spread this misinformation and the blood is on your hands too.
Science doesn't have an agenda, but a lot of "scientists" do. When you grow up you might actually learn that lesson.
I have no dog in this vaccine food fight, but will say that it fits well within the realm of natural selection that antibiotics, anti-virals and vaccinations all come with unintended consequences, as well as immediate risks associated with their use. Where one draws the line on that risk should be a personal decision. The meme using polio as an example of the foolhardiness of avoiding vaccines has some merit. Polio is a devastating disease. IMHO, a vaccination against such a disease is well worth the risk. Vaccination for Measles, Mumps and Rubella? That's arguable.
Objectively, you’re getting hustled. First it caused autism, we need more studies, more studies come in showing no link, so they move on to the next bullshit argument.
Science doesn’t have an agenda. You prove science wrong with more science. When you can’t, it’s not because of a conspiracy, it’s because you’re wrong.
You wrote that this guy argues that vaccines are ineffective and you have the audacity to tell me to be objective. Motherfucker who do you know that has polio?
You spread this misinformation and the blood is on your hands too.
Science doesn't have an agenda, but a lot of "scientists" do. When you grow up you might actually learn that lesson.
I have no dog in this vaccine food fight, but will say that it fits well within the realm of natural selection that antibiotics, anti-virals and vaccinations all come with unintended consequences, as well as immediate risks associated with their use. Where one draws the line on that risk should be a personal decision. The meme using polio as an example of the foolhardiness of avoiding vaccines has some merit. Polio is a devastating disease. IMHO, a vaccination against such a disease is well worth the risk. Vaccination for Measles, Mumps and Rubella? That's arguable.
Best post in the thread. Where we landed with our kids is this: we think there probably are some risks to vaccination that aren’t fully understood yet (not autism though). As you said unintended consequences would be a normal result here.
But we know there are some huge risks to not vaccinating that are fully understood.
Objectively, you’re getting hustled. First it caused autism, we need more studies, more studies come in showing no link, so they move on to the next bullshit argument.
Science doesn’t have an agenda. You prove science wrong with more science. When you can’t, it’s not because of a conspiracy, it’s because you’re wrong.
You wrote that this guy argues that vaccines are ineffective and you have the audacity to tell me to be objective. Motherfucker who do you know that has polio?
You spread this misinformation and the blood is on your hands too.
Science doesn't have an agenda, but a lot of "scientists" do. When you grow up you might actually learn that lesson.
I have no dog in this vaccine food fight, but will say that it fits well within the realm of natural selection that antibiotics, anti-virals and vaccinations all come with unintended consequences, as well as immediate risks associated with their use. Where one draws the line on that risk should be a personal decision. The meme using polio as an example of the foolhardiness of avoiding vaccines has some merit. Polio is a devastating disease. IMHO, a vaccination against such a disease is well worth the risk. Vaccination for Measles, Mumps and Rubella? That's arguable.
A scientist can have an agenda and then they have to get their research peer reviewed. And then anyone can read it. And then other scientists can test it and try and reproduce the results.
Why can’t anyone do that with the horrible risks of vaccines? Oh right, it’s the biggest conspiracy in human history. But I’m the one that needs to grow up.
Objectively, you’re getting hustled. First it caused autism, we need more studies, more studies come in showing no link, so they move on to the next bullshit argument.
Science doesn’t have an agenda. You prove science wrong with more science. When you can’t, it’s not because of a conspiracy, it’s because you’re wrong.
You wrote that this guy argues that vaccines are ineffective and you have the audacity to tell me to be objective. Motherfucker who do you know that has polio?
You spread this misinformation and the blood is on your hands too.
Science doesn't have an agenda, but a lot of "scientists" do. When you grow up you might actually learn that lesson.
I have no dog in this vaccine food fight, but will say that it fits well within the realm of natural selection that antibiotics, anti-virals and vaccinations all come with unintended consequences, as well as immediate risks associated with their use. Where one draws the line on that risk should be a personal decision. The meme using polio as an example of the foolhardiness of avoiding vaccines has some merit. Polio is a devastating disease. IMHO, a vaccination against such a disease is well worth the risk. Vaccination for Measles, Mumps and Rubella? That's arguable.
A scientist can have an agenda and then they have to get their research peer reviewed. And then anyone can read it. And then other scientists can test it and try and reproduce the results.
Why can’t anyone do that with the horrible risks of vaccines? Oh right, it’s the biggest conspiracy in human history. But I’m the one that needs to grow up.
South dog thinks the conspiracy is with scientists. And that political pundits and politicians don't have an agenda, are truthful about vaccines, and know more than scientists.
Objectively, you’re getting hustled. First it caused autism, we need more studies, more studies come in showing no link, so they move on to the next bullshit argument.
Science doesn’t have an agenda. You prove science wrong with more science. When you can’t, it’s not because of a conspiracy, it’s because you’re wrong.
You wrote that this guy argues that vaccines are ineffective and you have the audacity to tell me to be objective. Motherfucker who do you know that has polio?
You spread this misinformation and the blood is on your hands too.
Science doesn't have an agenda, but a lot of "scientists" do. When you grow up you might actually learn that lesson.
I have no dog in this vaccine food fight, but will say that it fits well within the realm of natural selection that antibiotics, anti-virals and vaccinations all come with unintended consequences, as well as immediate risks associated with their use. Where one draws the line on that risk should be a personal decision. The meme using polio as an example of the foolhardiness of avoiding vaccines has some merit. Polio is a devastating disease. IMHO, a vaccination against such a disease is well worth the risk. Vaccination for Measles, Mumps and Rubella? That's arguable.
A scientist can have an agenda and then they have to get their research peer reviewed. And then anyone can read it. And then other scientists can test it and try and reproduce the results.
Why can’t anyone do that with the horrible risks of vaccines? Oh right, it’s the biggest conspiracy in human history. But I’m the one that needs to grow up.
As I said, I have no dog in your vaccine food fight. @HillsboroDuck had the best response. He and his wife used a reasoned risk-benefit assessment to lead them to the decision to vaccinate their kids. Their decision, not someone else's. That's as it should be.
But here you go again. More naivety. Science is pure because scientists are kept in check by other scientists. The problem with peer reviews is the peer part. They're not always objective. This is especially true when there is a lot of money betting on a particular outcome. Again, when you grow up, you might learn this lesson. Or not.
Objectively, you’re getting hustled. First it caused autism, we need more studies, more studies come in showing no link, so they move on to the next bullshit argument.
Science doesn’t have an agenda. You prove science wrong with more science. When you can’t, it’s not because of a conspiracy, it’s because you’re wrong.
You wrote that this guy argues that vaccines are ineffective and you have the audacity to tell me to be objective. Motherfucker who do you know that has polio?
You spread this misinformation and the blood is on your hands too.
Science doesn't have an agenda, but a lot of "scientists" do. When you grow up you might actually learn that lesson.
I have no dog in this vaccine food fight, but will say that it fits well within the realm of natural selection that antibiotics, anti-virals and vaccinations all come with unintended consequences, as well as immediate risks associated with their use. Where one draws the line on that risk should be a personal decision. The meme using polio as an example of the foolhardiness of avoiding vaccines has some merit. Polio is a devastating disease. IMHO, a vaccination against such a disease is well worth the risk. Vaccination for Measles, Mumps and Rubella? That's arguable.
A scientist can have an agenda and then they have to get their research peer reviewed. And then anyone can read it. And then other scientists can test it and try and reproduce the results.
Why can’t anyone do that with the horrible risks of vaccines? Oh right, it’s the biggest conspiracy in human history. But I’m the one that needs to grow up.
South dog thinks the conspiracy is with scientists. And that political pundits and politicians don't have an agenda, are truthful about vaccines, and know more than scientists.
Objectively, you’re getting hustled. First it caused autism, we need more studies, more studies come in showing no link, so they move on to the next bullshit argument.
Science doesn’t have an agenda. You prove science wrong with more science. When you can’t, it’s not because of a conspiracy, it’s because you’re wrong.
You wrote that this guy argues that vaccines are ineffective and you have the audacity to tell me to be objective. Motherfucker who do you know that has polio?
Comments
...emerging evidence that certain childhood illnesses are actually protective of disease later in life; examines the role of fever, the gut, and cellular fluid in immune health; argues that vaccination is an ineffective (and harmful) attempt to shortcut a complex immune response; and asserts that the medical establishment has engaged in an authoritarian argument that robs parents of informed consent.
Can you find a single doctor that spouts this nonsense without something like this on his resume?
Oh right, it’s giant conspiracy by the medical establishment. We also didn’t land on the moon, climate change isn’t real and the moon landing was faked. Derp.
I hear Polio is also overrated
Science doesn’t have an agenda. You prove science wrong with more science. When you can’t, it’s not because of a conspiracy, it’s because you’re wrong.
You wrote that this guy argues that vaccines are ineffective and you have the audacity to tell me to be objective. Motherfucker who do you know that has polio?
https://www.reddit.com/r/vaxxhappened/comments/axfqhz/saw_this_on_facebook_and_idk_if_its_true_but_the/
You spread this misinformation and the blood is on your hands too.
I have no dog in this vaccine food fight, but will say that it fits well within the realm of natural selection that antibiotics, anti-virals and vaccinations all come with unintended consequences, as well as immediate risks associated with their use. Where one draws the line on that risk should be a personal decision. The meme using polio as an example of the foolhardiness of avoiding vaccines has some merit. Polio is a devastating disease. IMHO, a vaccination against such a disease is well worth the risk. Vaccination for Measles, Mumps and Rubella? That's arguable.
But we know there are some huge risks to not vaccinating that are fully understood.
We love our kids so we vaccinated them.
Why can’t anyone do that with the horrible risks of vaccines? Oh right, it’s the biggest conspiracy in human history. But I’m the one that needs to grow up.
But here you go again. More naivety. Science is pure because scientists are kept in check by other scientists. The problem with peer reviews is the peer part. They're not always objective. This is especially true when there is a lot of money betting on a particular outcome. Again, when you grow up, you might learn this lesson. Or not.