Why did she believe that? I like to believe are politicians aren’t completely insane so what pseudo/bad whatever studies led her to believe vaccines cause mental retardation?
No, not really; there's no case to be made there. Long and conclusively debunked, and the removal of it from most vaccinations didn't change autism etc. rates at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_and_vaccines
> Maybe she doesn’t understand most new ones don’t?
Little in Michele Bachmann's career gives me reason to give her that much benefit of the doubt.
If you don’t understand such things and make unsubstantiated, incorrect claims on a national stage as a presidential candidate, I have a lot less tolerance.
Her stated reasons were bullshit smokescreens.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/05/12/9936151...
> That selling can be big business. One of the leading anti-vaccine advocates, Joseph Mercola, is believed to bring in millions each year through his companies, which sell an array of branded natural supplements, beauty products and even pet supplies.
Sure, but I look more askance at someone being paid millions for disproven bullshit than someone being paid billions for effective medical treatments. Both are motivated actors, but one's purely a bullshit artist.
You're supporting my point, not contesting it.
Also, you simply said there was no measles. I said news cycle today shows differently but the real point is if your biggest supporter is big pharma, maybe you are less inclined to investigate certain things and more inclined to accept additional fancy dinners with their experts and maybe, just maybe, that influences what is reported and how.
… and dead people tell no tales. They can’t warn others against ineffective treatments and the preventive measures that they would love to have access to.
I'd hope that any appreciable amount of time spent looking into Michele Bachmann would disabuse you entirely of the notion that the presumption of good faith is appropriate for all politicians.
For instance, HPV causes about 37,000 cases of cancer each year: https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/statistics/cases.htm
That works out to about 1 in 9,000 Americans. What are the rates of bad reactions to Gardasil that are worse than cancer? According to the CDC, at https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/hcp/vaccine-safety-data.html,
"Approximately 28 million doses of Gardasil 9 distributed in the United States; 7,244 reports of adverse events (AEs); 97% of AEs classified as non-serious and 3% classified as serious"
3% of 7,244 is 217. 28,000,000 / 217 is one serious adverse reaction per 129,000 recipients, or 1/14th as common as HPV-related cancer.
In other words, if you care about your health, you're 14x better off getting Gardasil than waiting to see if you get cancer from having HPV.
You mean
"She says data available for Gardasil shows that it lasts five years; there is no data showing that it remains effective beyond five years."
well, there wasn't any 5+ years data in 2009.
Weird that when this comes up in the antivaxxer catechisms it's always this story from 2009 and never Dr. Harper's 15 years of work since then firmly establishing the efficacy, safety, and longevity of the vaccine, and setting up vaccination and screening programs world wide to hopefully eliminate cervical cancer within the next few decades.