Schiff sued by a doctors association

[Crazyhole]

https://aapsonline.org/rep-adam-schiff-sued-by-physicians-for-censoring-vaccine-debate/


Is asking media outlets to discredit opposing viewpoints an abuse of power?

 

[Boosted87]

https://aapsonline.org/rep-adam-schiff-sued-by-physicians-for-censoring-vaccine-debate/


Is asking media outlets to discredit opposing viewpoints an abuse of power?

You know, the anti-vaccine deal is one disinformation activity that I'd think most of us here would be on the same side of. If organizations are actively undermining public health by running add campaigns and promoting documentaries that ultimately reduce the % of the public who is vaccinated, then it becomes a national public health issue.

Members of Congress encouraging private companies to deal with this on their own - before we reach a crisis level that requires federal intervention that has 1st Amendment issues, is probably a good thing. I mean, is Ted Cruz abusing his power when he complains that Google isn't fair to right-wing content? Pretty absurd contention right?

 

[Crazyhole]

You know, the anti-vaccine deal is one disinformation activity that I'd think most of us here would be on the same side of. If organizations are actively undermining public health by running add campaigns and promoting documentaries that ultimately reduce the % of the public who is vaccinated, then it becomes a national public health issue.

Members of Congress encouraging private companies to deal with this on their own - before we reach a crisis level that requires federal intervention that has 1st Amendment issues, is probably a good thing. I mean, is Ted Cruz abusing his power when he complains that Google isn't fair to right-wing content? Pretty absurd contention right?

What would the motivation be for being an anti-vaccination advocate? Why would a doctor or group of doctors with nothing to gain come out against the practice?

I'm not an anti-vaccer, but my opinions on the issue have come exclusively from the government. We already know that the pharmaceutical lobby is extremely influential in DC and they have a lot to gain by selling their drugs.

So we have 2 positions: one coming from people who have nothing to gain financially and the other coming from people with a lot to gain and are willing to use authority to suppress the dissenting opinion.

One of my closest friends is a doctor who is 100% anti-vacc. A few days ago a shared an article with him about how polio has been eradicated in Nigeria thanks to the polio vaccine. He inundated me with research, and it wasn't the "vaccine causes autism" crap that you would expect, it was charts showing how diseases like polio and measles had already been declining due to things like clean water and better sanitation when the vaccines came out, and how there are several different diseases that are comparable to them had been misdiagnosed prior to the vaccines, like guillain-barre. It definitely made me stop and think, and it seems like a conversation worthy of having at least.

 

[fried-chicken]

Hey what ever happened to that last lawsuit when you told us Schiff was screwed and made a big deal out of it.

Nothing?

 

[Boosted87]

What would the motivation be for being an anti-vaccination advocate? Why would a doctor or group of doctors with nothing to gain come out against the practice?

I'm not an anti-vaccer, but my opinions on the issue have come exclusively from the government. We already know that the pharmaceutical lobby is extremely influential in DC and they have a lot to gain by selling their drugs.

So we have 2 positions: one coming from people who have nothing to gain financially and the other coming from people with a lot to gain and are willing to use authority to suppress the dissenting opinion.

One of my closest friends is a doctor who is 100% anti-vacc. A few days ago a shared an article with him about how polio has been eradicated in Nigeria thanks to the polio vaccine. He inundated me with research, and it wasn't the "vaccine causes autism" crap that you would expect, it was charts showing how diseases like polio and measles had already been declining due to things like clean water and better sanitation when the vaccines came out, and how there are several different diseases that are comparable to them had been misdiagnosed prior to the vaccines, like guillain-barre. It definitely made me stop and think, and it seems like a conversation worthy of having at least.

There's a fine line between having a conversation and undermining public health. It's fine to talk about how maybe the earth is actually flat. But if 10% of the public subscribed to that belief, it wouldn't lead to a public health crisis. Vaccination is a different animal. Motivation comes from a desire to protect our offspring from harm. The motivation is noble. There is a profit motive though. There are snake-oil salesman out there promoting their essential oils and whatever other natural vaccine alternatives they're pitching and using social media and ad campaigns to spread disinformation.

Herd immunity effects make is very easy to exist as a non-vaccinated individual in a well vaccinated society. But when the % of those vaccinated begins to drop, disaster can hit quickly. Look at what is currently happening on Samoa right now. A medical error lead to the death of two 12 month olds because MMR vaccines were mixed with the wrong dilutant. That fueled anti-vax campaigns and the government suspended MMR vaccinations for 10 months. That was July 2018. A few months later, a measles infected traveler introduced the disease to the island. As of late December, 79 people have died out of 5,500 infections. Or look at the case in the Texas Church a few years back. A vaccine-critical pastor lead to a low vaccination rate at the church, then all of the sudden you have 15 cases in one congregation.

I know it sounds like crazy conspiracy stuff, but realize that Russian efforts to undermine US society are far reaching. They're even involved in amplifying anti-vax information on social media. Any place where there is an opportunity to undermine trust in institutions or sew division, Russian agents are amplifying.

And look - assume for a second that 90% of vaccine policy is good and 10% is bad. If you let that 10% drive the debate, and vaccination rates drop off drastically, you're going to do far more harm undermining that 90% than you improving on that 10%.

 

[KNIGHTTIME^]

Definitely not an anti-vaccer, but there is money motivation to add more and more vaccinations to the standard list. The people that say no vaccinations are crazy, but maybe 40 shots in your first year isn't needed.

 

[fried-chicken]

Definitely not an anti-vaccer, but

Let me stop you right there. Yes you are. If you say "but" you're about to list opinions against vaccinating children

there is money motivation to add more and more vaccinations to the standard list. The people that say no vaccinations are crazy, but maybe 40 shots in your first year isn't needed.

There it is.

 

[UCFWayne]

Let me stop you right there. Yes you are. If you say "but" you're about to list opinions against vaccinating children



There it is.

knighttime trolls alot, but that was one of his better posts. wtf is wrong with you.

 

[KNIGHTTIME^]

Let me stop you right there. Yes you are. If you say "but" you're about to list opinions against vaccinating children



There it is.

I have two kids and fully vaccinated both. That doesn't change my mind that I want to know if all 40 vaccinations are truly of value or does it create risk. I feel confident that most are important and needed, but I'm not blind to know there is a huge financial reward to add a new vaccination to the list.

 

[Crazyhole]

Definitely not an anti-vaccer, but there is money motivation to add more and more vaccinations to the standard list. The people that say no vaccinations are crazy, but maybe 40 shots in your first year isn't needed.

It's to the point where they are recommending HPV vaccinations for 9 year old girls, even though their own data says the vaccination has to have a booster in 5 years. How many 9-14 year old girls are having sex? 5 years ago I asked my doctor about whether my daughters should have the gardasil shot and he said the whole thing is a farce, but if we insisted on it to wait until they were 18 so they have a better idea on how effective it is. I was honestly surprised by that because it was being pushed so hard.

 

[KNIGHTTIME^]

knighttime trolls alot, but that was one of his better posts. wtf is wrong with you.

I do troll but this was real and I'm not even close to an anti-vaccer. I'm open to continued research on each vaccine (adding more or removing).

 

[Crazyhole]

There's a fine line between having a conversation and undermining public health. It's fine to talk about how maybe the earth is actually flat. But if 10% of the public subscribed to that belief, it wouldn't lead to a public health crisis. Vaccination is a different animal. Motivation comes from a desire to protect our offspring from harm. The motivation is noble. There is a profit motive though. There are snake-oil salesman out there promoting their essential oils and whatever other natural vaccine alternatives they're pitching and using social media and ad campaigns to spread disinformation.

Herd immunity effects make is very easy to exist as a non-vaccinated individual in a well vaccinated society. But when the % of those vaccinated begins to drop, disaster can hit quickly. Look at what is currently happening on Samoa right now. A medical error lead to the death of two 12 month olds because MMR vaccines were mixed with the wrong dilutant. That fueled anti-vax campaigns and the government suspended MMR vaccinations for 10 months. That was July 2018. A few months later, a measles infected traveler introduced the disease to the island. As of late December, 79 people have died out of 5,500 infections. Or look at the case in the Texas Church a few years back. A vaccine-critical pastor lead to a low vaccination rate at the church, then all of the sudden you have 15 cases in one congregation.

I know it sounds like crazy conspiracy stuff, but realize that Russian efforts to undermine US society are far reaching. They're even involved in amplifying anti-vax information on social media. Any place where there is an opportunity to undermine trust in institutions or sew division, Russian agents are amplifying.

And look - assume for a second that 90% of vaccine policy is good and 10% is bad. If you let that 10% drive the debate, and vaccination rates drop off drastically, you're going to do far more harm undermining that 90% than you improving on that 10%.

FWIW, he did say that the measles immunization is the one that has proven effective. He's very opposed to the mumps and rubella addition because supposedly they haven't been effective at all.

Seems to me that the smallpox vaccination did the trick too, and he hasn't provided any evidence to the contrary.

 

[UCFBS]

You know, the anti-vaccine deal is one disinformation activity that I'd think most of us here would be on the same side of. If organizations are actively undermining public health by running add campaigns and promoting documentaries that ultimately reduce the % of the public who is vaccinated, then it becomes a national public health issue.

What about Big Pharma control of schedules?

That's what even people like myself are trying to bring some scrutiny on. It's worse in the UK with the power of the NIH and their lobbyists pushing schedules even the US FDA think are nuts.

Members of Congress encouraging private companies to deal with this on their own - before we reach a crisis level that requires federal intervention that has 1st Amendment issues, is probably a good thing. I mean, is Ted Cruz abusing his power when he complains that Google isn't fair to right-wing content? Pretty absurd contention right?

But the right isn't censoring, the left is. Cruz and others are bringing scrutiny on censorship of speech, open debate and other things.

The left is trying to remove it altogether. Debate is good. Government doesn't always know best, especially with all the lobbying. Big Pharma is a serious issue with mandated schedules.

In fact, the left's argument of 'we need to prevent conversation for public safety' kinda just kills it for me. It's like they are saying people aren't intelligent enough to understand.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Adam Schiff used his Chair to lie to the public for 2 years. He should be kicked to the gutter

 

[UCFBS]

Adam Schiff used his Chair to lie to the public for 2 years. He should be kicked to the gutter

Well, I don't see Schiff and Trump as much different. So when I see Democrats complain about Trump and defend Schiff, I laugh. But I also do the same about Republicans who complain about Schiff, but defend Trump.

 

[Boosted87]

What about Big Pharma control of schedules?

That's what even people like myself are trying to bring some scrutiny on. It's worse in the UK with the power of the NIH and their lobbyists pushing schedules even the US FDA think are nuts.

But the right isn't censoring, the left is. Cruz and others are bringing scrutiny on censorship of speech, open debate and other things.

The left is trying to remove it altogether. Debate is good. Government doesn't always know best, especially with all the lobbying. Big Pharma is a serious issue with mandated schedules.

In fact, the left's argument of 'we need to prevent conversation for public safety' kinda just kills it for me. It's like they are saying people aren't intelligent enough to understand.

Look "trust but verify" is a good philosophy. But you can you use this approach to undermine any institution you want and make it still seem reasonable. The problem isn't people doing their own research. The problem is when so much disinformation has been created that an average person has almost no chance of sorting it and finding the facts. This isn't like opening up your old encyclopedia to the "vaccines" page and educating yourself a bit. The problem is relatively uninformed parents being bombarded with objectively false information and scare tactics while trying to do what's best for their baby. That's a highly susceptible target market.

No reasonable people are trying to stop conversations. The simple question we are faced with his how do you deal with the weaponization of disinformation in the age of social media? You are dramatically underestimating the impact it's having on society right now. Would you be OK with Pharma companies running advertisements that objectively misinformed regarding the results or side effects of a drug? Is that stamping out conversation? Of course not.

When issues become political, this gets much much harder to sort out. If you undermine trust in an institution and make the subject political, then it becomes a "free speech" issue regardless of the facts.

 

[Boosted87]

Well, I don't see Schiff and Trump as much different. So when I see Democrats complain about Trump and defend Schiff, I laugh. But I also do the same about Republicans who complain about Schiff, but defend Trump.

"There's an unequal amount of good and bad in all things. The trick is to determine the ratio and act accordingly." I prefer your take to anyone who objectively worships one and demonizes the other. But I also think it's short sighted to lump everyone together as well.

 

[sk8knight]

It's to the point where they are recommending HPV vaccinations for 9 year old girls, even though their own data says the vaccination has to have a booster in 5 years. How many 9-14 year old girls are having sex? 5 years ago I asked my doctor about whether my daughters should have the gardasil shot and he said the whole thing is a farce, but if we insisted on it to wait until they were 18 so they have a better idea on how effective it is. I was honestly surprised by that because it was being pushed so hard.

The point of the early vaccination is because the HPV vaccine is more effective before they’ve had sex. There are a good deal more 11- and 12-year-olds having sex than you’d ever imagine. The Government's advice is there to Inform you of how it can be most effective across the broadest range of all of the diversity in this country. If your doctor didn’t at least inform you of that, than he wasn’t discussing all of the factors. The vaccine isn’t forced on you; you are free to make your own choices based upon the knowledge of your circumstance that only you have.

That’s the thing though, we seem to be abdicating our decisions to the Government for some reason. We have to remember that the government has to issue one set of standards for all of the wildly different circumstances and conditions for everyone in the country. In other words, a Yuge one size fits all when situations like medical truly call for a custom tailored solution.

 

[Boosted87]

The point of the early vaccination is because the HPV vaccine is more effective before they’ve had sex. There are a good deal more 11- and 12-year-olds having sex than you’d ever imagine. The Government's advice is there to Inform you of how it can be most effective across the broadest range of all of the diversity in this country. If your doctor didn’t at least inform you of that, than he wasn’t discussing all of the factors. The vaccine isn’t forced on you; you are free to make your own choices based upon the knowledge of your circumstance that only you have.

That’s the thing though, we seem to be abdicating our decisions to the Government for some reason. We have to remember that the government has to issue one set of standards for all of the wildly different circumstances and conditions for everyone in the country. In other words, a Yuge one size fits all when situations like medical truly call for a custom tailored solution.

Great post. And I think this is an area where personal liberty vs public health and safety comes into. You simply cannot manage public health through individual decision making. You need to have a trusted authority to do it for you. It requires leadership. This would be the equivalent of not issuing a mandatory evacuation for a Hurricane and expecting individuals to personally assess their risk factors, age, health, elevation, storm direction, severity etc.

It's funny because when something isn't politicized, we have no problem trusting authority. Does anyone doubt the local Fire Departments ability to fight fires? Does anyone doubt NASA's ability calculate orbital mechanics? If you're building a house and you're paying attention, you might make sure your builder is installing hurricane straps correctly and per code, but you're not trying to re-run the math and convince your builder that you don't need as many straps as the County says you do.

Let it get politicized and boom - everybody is an expert and the Dunning-Kruger effect comes into full view.

 

[Crazyhole]

Great post. And I think this is an area where personal liberty vs public health and safety comes into. You simply cannot manage public health through individual decision making. You need to have a trusted authority to do it for you. It requires leadership. This would be the equivalent of not issuing a mandatory evacuation for a Hurricane and expecting individuals to personally assess their risk factors, age, health, elevation, storm direction, severity etc.

It's funny because when something isn't politicized, we have no problem trusting authority. Does anyone doubt the local Fire Departments ability to fight fires? Does anyone doubt NASA's ability calculate orbital mechanics? If you're building a house and you're paying attention, you might make sure your builder is installing hurricane straps correctly and per code, but you're not trying to re-run the math and convince your builder that you don't need as many straps as the County says you do.

Let it get politicized and boom - everybody is an expert and the Dunning-Kruger effect comes into full view.

How is HPV a public health concern that would require mandatory immunization? It's not like just being around someone with it can give it to you, its sexually transmitted.

 

[Boosted87]

How is HPV a public health concern that would require mandatory immunization? It's not like just being around someone with it can give it to you, its sexually transmitted.

I don't really have a strong opinion on HPV here, but I think the argument is pretty obvious. Effectively, this is a vaccine against a range of cancers. I'm ignorant on the data, but assuming the data suggested that herd-immunity levels of vaccination could effectively eradicate a range of cancers, from society - isn't there a public health value there? The fact that HPV is sexually transmitted is irrelevant to the underlying rationale, but I think it clouds our judgement because we see it as preventable through behavior on an individual basis.

 

[sk8knight]

How is HPV a public health concern that would require mandatory immunization? It's not like just being around someone with it can give it to you, its sexually transmitted.

I tend to have the same feeling as Crazyhole here. There are population-threatening diseases that warrant mandatory vaccinations; smallpox for one. The rest should be optional but we should provide information, encouragement, etc. Remember that leadership does not mean forcing people to do what you want.

 

[Crazyhole]

At risk of blending two controversial topics, there is research that shows a correlation between vaccinations and transexuality. The premise is that since some vaccines use aborted fetus tissue to culture the drugs, there is the possibility that vaccines which were cultured in female fetuses can actually carry the xx chromosomes into boys, who have the less dominant y chromosome. Not sure how they could possibly overcome the basic skeptical requirement of correlation doesnt equal causality with transexuality being so unpredictable, but it's an interesting premise.

 

[Boosted87]

At risk of blending two controversial topics, there is research that shows a correlation between vaccinations and transexuality. The premise is that since some vaccines use aborted fetus tissue to culture the drugs, there is the possibility that vaccines which were cultured in female fetuses can actually carry the xx chromosomes into boys, who have the less dominant y chromosome. Not sure how they could possibly overcome the basic skeptical requirement of correlation doesnt equal causality with transexuality being so unpredictable, but it's an interesting premise.

You're right to be highly skeptical. Two data series trending in the same direction are going to be correlated. So if you just asked me "hey do you think the % of people who admit to being trans and vaccination rates are correlated over the last 50 years?". I'd say yes without even seeing any data. It's intuitive that they've both been moving in the same direction.

Just for fun.

 

[Crazyhole]

https://images.app.goo.gl/imkoSvTHYknx4AJZA

 

[Boosted87]

https://images.app.goo.gl/imkoSvTHYknx4AJZA

Ohhh! Perfect. Is this from you Dr. buddy? This is a perfect example of how misleading data can be. This is either (1) intentional disinformation or (2) generated by an idiot. In either case, it's incredibly misleading as presented. I have no idea if the data itself is accurate but it's irrelevant with the obvious problems. It's intentionally designed to mislead. First, let's all agree that our ability to handle infectious diseases greatly improved from 1850 to modern day. But these charts use that improvement to mask the impacts of vaccines by selectively choosing the scales and time periods.

The measles chart is atrocious. It stops at 1970 though the vaccine was introduced in 1963. In the 50's, you had something like 330 cases per 100,000. By 1980 you had 1 case per 100,000. You went from 500,000 cases per year and 500 deaths down to a few hundred cases per year. And with those infections come other complications besides death. If you were to look at this chart, you've learned absolutely nothing about the long term impacts of the measles vaccine. For evidence that the measles vaccine works (and it's not just general advancement nearly eradicating it) look at the examples I posted earlier in the thread.

The Polio chart only shows 14 years and it ignores parlytic polio cases in favor of deaths. This creates the impression that we had mostly taken care of polio prior to the vaccine. Look at a more complete chart, from 1900 to present day and you'll have a far different takeaway. There was a major spike a few years prior to the vaccine and then a mean regression. At the peak, you had almost 60,000 cases of paralyzation (not death). There were over 13,000 paralyzations the year the vaccine was introduced in 1955. By the late 60's it was basically zero.

So yea this is (probably) accurate data framed to further a specific agenda.

 

[Crazyhole]

Ohhh! Perfect. Is this from you Dr. buddy? This is a perfect example of how misleading data can be. This is either (1) intentional disinformation or (2) generated by an idiot. In either case, it's incredibly misleading as presented. I have no idea if the data itself is accurate but it's irrelevant with the obvious problems. It's intentionally designed to mislead. First, let's all agree that our ability to handle infectious diseases greatly improved from 1850 to modern day. But these charts use that improvement to mask the impacts of vaccines by selectively choosing the scales and time periods.

The measles chart is atrocious. It stops at 1970 though the vaccine was introduced in 1963. In the 50's, you had something like 330 cases per 100,000. By 1980 you had 1 case per 100,000. You went from 500,000 cases per year and 500 deaths down to a few hundred cases per year. And with those infections come other complications besides death. If you were to look at this chart, you've learned absolutely nothing about the long term impacts of the measles vaccine. For evidence that the measles vaccine works (and it's not just general advancement nearly eradicating it) look at the examples I posted earlier in the thread.

The Polio chart only shows 14 years and it ignores parlytic polio cases in favor of deaths. This creates the impression that we had mostly taken care of polio prior to the vaccine. Look at a more complete chart, from 1900 to present day and you'll have a far different takeaway. There was a major spike a few years prior to the vaccine and then a mean regression. At the peak, you had almost 60,000 cases of paralyzation (not death). There were over 13,000 paralyzations the year the vaccine was introduced in 1955. By the late 60's it was basically zero.

So yea this is (probably) accurate data framed to further a specific agenda.

I think the point of it, assuming its accurate, is to show that all of these infectious diseases were on the decline prior to their vaccines. It's a legit point to make, showing that clean water and better sanitation practices had the same or possibly greater effect than the vaccines themselves did. I think the polio situation in Nigeria could give us a better idea of its effectiveness, assuming nothing else changed substantially in the same timeframe.

 

[Crazyhole]

Ohhh! Perfect. Is this from you Dr. buddy? This is a perfect example of how misleading data can be. This is either (1) intentional disinformation or (2) generated by an idiot. In either case, it's incredibly misleading as presented. I have no idea if the data itself is accurate but it's irrelevant with the obvious problems. It's intentionally designed to mislead. First, let's all agree that our ability to handle infectious diseases greatly improved from 1850 to modern day. But these charts use that improvement to mask the impacts of vaccines by selectively choosing the scales and time periods.

The measles chart is atrocious. It stops at 1970 though the vaccine was introduced in 1963. In the 50's, you had something like 330 cases per 100,000. By 1980 you had 1 case per 100,000. You went from 500,000 cases per year and 500 deaths down to a few hundred cases per year. And with those infections come other complications besides death. If you were to look at this chart, you've learned absolutely nothing about the long term impacts of the measles vaccine. For evidence that the measles vaccine works (and it's not just general advancement nearly eradicating it) look at the examples I posted earlier in the thread.

The Polio chart only shows 14 years and it ignores parlytic polio cases in favor of deaths. This creates the impression that we had mostly taken care of polio prior to the vaccine. Look at a more complete chart, from 1900 to present day and you'll have a far different takeaway. There was a major spike a few years prior to the vaccine and then a mean regression. At the peak, you had almost 60,000 cases of paralyzation (not death). There were over 13,000 paralyzations the year the vaccine was introduced in 1955. By the late 60's it was basically zero.

So yea this is (probably) accurate data framed to further a specific agenda.

The citation references the American association of pediatrics. A quick google search shows that it's probably a legit organization.

 

[Boosted87]

I think the point of it, assuming its accurate, is to show that all of these infectious diseases were on the decline prior to their vaccines. It's a legit point to make, showing that clean water and better sanitation practices had the same or possibly greater effect than the vaccines themselves did. I think the polio situation in Nigeria could give us a better idea of its effectiveness, assuming nothing else changed substantially in the same timeframe.

What you've said is true but that's not the purpose of that chart. That chart is intentionally designed to undermine confidence in vaccination. It's not designed for nuanced discussion segregating the roles of sanitation and clean water versus vaccination in disease eradication. It's not like the CDC pretends sanitation, clean water, and antibiotics don't exist.

 

[UCFBS]

"There's an unequal amount of good and bad in all things. The trick is to determine the ratio and act accordingly." I prefer your take to anyone who objectively worships one and demonizes the other. But I also think it's short sighted to lump everyone together as well.

Schiff sounds like Trump. He's just as childish too. He proved that during the hearings to the point even his own party had to tell him, 'knock it off.'

 

[BillClintonsTheRapist]

Hey what ever happened to that last lawsuit when you told us Schiff was screwed and made a big deal out of it.

Nothing?

so close to reaching self-awareness here

 

[Crazyhole]

What you've said is true but that's not the purpose of that chart. That chart is intentionally designed to undermine confidence in vaccination. It's not designed for nuanced discussion segregating the roles of sanitation and clean water versus vaccination in disease eradication. It's not like the CDC pretends sanitation, clean water, and antibiotics don't exist.

Regardless of the motivations of the chart, if its legit or not is what is worth debating. Even the chart that you shared doesnt show a change in trend for polio cases as they were on a sharp downturn already. Should I assume that whoever shared that chart has a bias and dismiss it because I question their motives? Probably not. Should I question it if I find out that the person who created it has a financial interest in influencing opinion? Absolutely.

 

[Boosted87]

Regardless of the motivations of the chart, if its legit or not is what is worth debating. Even the chart that you shared doesnt show a change in trend for polio cases as they were on a sharp downturn already. Should I assume that whoever shared that chart has a bias and dismiss it because I question their motives? Probably not. Should I question it if I find out that the person who created it has a financial interest in influencing opinion? Absolutely.

Most reasonable people can be convinced the earth is round with a single photo.

The CDC is literally the world's leading authority on infectious disease. But the CDC can't hold up a single visual image that disproves 95% of the underlying anti-vax argument. Instead, we have data. Lots of data. All you have to do is cherry pick some data and selectively choose how you're going to present that data, and you can convince a completely reasonable person that "hey maybe this is a conversation worth having after all."

The profit motive matters for sure but you're only examining from the side of corruption. What about a capitalist argument? If a Pharma company invents a vaccine capable of improving public health, there's a massive windfall ahead of them. Isn't that a good thing? At least with the CDC and vaccines, you have scientists making data-driven recommendations. It'd be a far different story if congress was voting on which vaccines were required directly while pharma was lobbying them.

 

[Crazyhole]

Most reasonable people can be convinced the earth is round with a single photo.

The CDC is literally the world's leading authority on infectious disease. But the CDC can't hold up a single visual image that disproves 95% of the underlying anti-vax argument. Instead, we have data. Lots of data. All you have to do is cherry pick some data and selectively choose how you're going to present that data, and you can convince a completely reasonable person that "hey maybe this is a conversation worth having after all."

The profit motive matters for sure but you're only examining from the side of corruption. What about a capitalist argument? If a Pharma company invents a vaccine capable of improving public health, there's a massive windfall ahead of them. Isn't that a good thing? At least with the CDC and vaccines, you have scientists making data-driven recommendations. It'd be a far different story if congress was voting on which vaccines were required directly while pharma was lobbying them.

I actually just brought up your points with my friend yesterday. He followed up with articles from the 50s through 80s on how population control was part of the motivation. I kind of pissed him off when I responded with "how do you know that anti-vaccers dont have that motivation?"

 

[Boosted87]

I actually just brought up your points with my friend yesterday. He followed up with articles from the 50s through 80s on how population control was part of the motivation. I kind of pissed him off when I responded with "how do you know that anti-vaccers dont have that motivation?"

LOL nice. Happy to help debunk crappy data anytime.

 

[Crazyhole]

LOL nice. Happy to help debunk crappy data anytime.

In fairness I did present that to him before you did to me, so dont let your ego inflate too much, lol. I think all of the data coming from both sides is worthy of criticism. Japan has some of the healthiest people in the world and they have banned several vaccines. That's worthy of consideration.

 

[UCFBS]

Most reasonable people can be convinced the earth is round with a single photo.

And yet, it's not perfectly round. And there are various aspects to the Earth that are not well described by a simple, 3rd grader level comment.

The CDC is literally the world's leading authority on infectious disease.

Yes, and the US FDA is the authority on approving medicines that combat disease. The US CDC is focused on mass communicability. The US FDA is focused on individual health.

That's why the CDC will recommend something for the greater populace at the same time the US FDA is warning people of the efficacity v. risk, even yanking one of Big Pharma's vaccines from the market at the same as the CDC is promoting it (yes, it's happened).

But the CDC can't hold up a single visual image that disproves 95% of the underlying anti-vax argument.

That's because not all alleged 'anti-vax' arguments are 3rd grader logic. Some of them are very detailed.

For example, we've had over a full generation of the VZL vaccine. Why aren't chicken pox and, even more so, complications due to shingles, down? And the alleged 'milder case' argument isn't doing very well. Even the US FDA is looking at no longer recommending VZL for children, and to a new, 'dead' VZV option.

Instead, we have data. Lots of data. All you have to do is cherry pick some data and selectively choose how you're going to present that data, and you can convince a completely reasonable person that "hey maybe this is a conversation worth having after all."

That's because the 'efficacity v. risk' argument is valid. I'm tired of pro-vaxxers being 'in bed' with Big Pharma when the mortality rate is negligible. It's Big Pharma at work.

Heck, the UK NHS is pushing a vaccine schedule now for toddlers that even the US CDC doesn't, and the US FDA doesn't recommend for risk. But unlike the US, if you 'speak out' against such in the UK, you can lose your license.

The profit motive matters for sure but you're only examining from the side of corruption. What about a capitalist argument? If a Pharma company invents a vaccine capable of improving public health, there's a massive windfall ahead of them. Isn't that a good thing?

Simple statistics. Have you seen how much Big Pharma is peddling these days?! It's UK NHS-like non-sense that scares me.

Taking the control out of the hands of individual doctors, and putting it in the hands of federal legislators who are lobbied.

At least with the CDC and vaccines, you have scientists making data-driven recommendations. It'd be a far different story if congress was voting on which vaccines were required directly while pharma was lobbying them.

And yet, the US FDA disagrees with them ... and more than you realize.

 

[Boosted87]

And yet, it's not perfectly round. And there are various aspects to the Earth that are not well described by a simple, 3rd grader level comment.

Yes, and the US FDA is the authority on approving medicines that combat disease. The US CDC is focused on mass communicability. The US FDA is focused on individual health.

That's why the CDC will recommend something for the greater populace at the same time the US FDA is warning people of the efficacity v. risk, even yanking one of Big Pharma's vaccines from the market at the same as the CDC is promoting it (yes, it's happened).

That's because not all alleged 'anti-vax' arguments are 3rd grader logic. Some of them are very detailed.

For example, we've had over a full generation of the VZL vaccine. Why aren't chicken pox and, even more so, complications due to shingles, down? And the alleged 'milder case' argument isn't doing very well. Even the US FDA is looking at no longer recommending VZL for children, and to a new, 'dead' VZV option.

That's because the 'efficacity v. risk' argument is valid. I'm tired of pro-vaxxers being 'in bed' with Big Pharma when the mortality rate is negligible. It's Big Pharma at work.

Heck, the UK NHS is pushing a vaccine schedule now for toddlers that even the US CDC doesn't, and the US FDA doesn't recommend for risk. But unlike the US, if you 'speak out' against such in the UK, you can lose your license.

Simple statistics. Have you seen how much Big Pharma is peddling these days?! It's UK NHS-like non-sense that scares me.

Taking the control out of the hands of individual doctors, and putting it in the hands of federal legislators who are lobbied.

And yet, the US FDA disagrees with them ... and more than you realize.

Third grader logic. Ok. You've said that twice to me now. Guess I'll go ahead and play along. I know you are but what am I? Am I doing that right? You're the expert on identifying third grade logic on an internet message forum.

 

[UCFBS]

Third grader logic. Ok. You've said that twice to me now. Guess I'll go ahead and play along. I know you are but what am I? Am I doing that right? You're the expert on identifying third grade logic on an internet message forum.

This is an example of 3rd grader logic ...

"Most reasonable people can be convinced the earth is round with a single photo." -- @Boosted87​

You know what I want? I want someone who understands the physics of why the Earth is round. Unfortunately most Americans don't remember their 18th century classical physics, so they are easily fooled. That's why a significant number of Americans think the moon landings were faked.

Definitely not an anti-vaccer, but there is money motivation to add more and more vaccinations to the standard list. The people that say no vaccinations are crazy, but maybe 40 shots in your first year isn't needed.

^^^ This. The example is the UK system, which we're quickly moving towards too. It's real. And it's scary how much Big Pharma can censor physicians.

 

[Boosted87]

This is an example of 3rd grader logic ...

"Most reasonable people can be convinced the earth is round with a single photo." -- @Boosted87​

You know what I want? I want someone who understands the physics of why the Earth is round. Unfortunately most Americans don't remember their 18th century classical physics, so they are easily fooled. That's why a significant number of Americans think the moon landings were faked.

Let me explain my point in excruciating detail because I guess you can't understand third grade logic or apply third grade logic in context of the on going discussion.

Flat earth conspiracies are hilariously fun. But they immediately require you to take a leap of faith that all stitched satellite imagery and full-earth photos taken from further out are doctored and fake. Their theory has no basis to explain why their proposed earth model doesn't appear that way in photos. Thus a huge leap of faith is required just to get past the most basic evidence - a photo. A reasonable person takes the full earth photos at face value. They may listen to your arguments of conspiracy theories and such, but it's going to take a lot of evidence to overcome Occam's Razor.

In other words, the scientifically uninformed but reasonable lay person will place a high level of confidence in NASA supplied imagery of a "round" earth. That's simple and easy to digest evidence contrary to a flat earth. It requires exactly zero knowledge of 18th century classical physics to arrive at this conclusion.

If a mom on FB is nervous about vaccinating her baby thanks to some anti-vax FB group, there's no "round earth photo" equivalent to counter those arguments.

So yes - my point was simple enough a third grader could understand it - though it doesn't appear you did.