I've never experienced the first part and the latter seems far less likely if you're doing a regular checkup / going in for a vaccine.
Either way the benefits of vaccines are obvious, proven, and I suspect the decision to not do it is something other than day of "I don't like my doctor".
Yet I’m sure you understand “it has never happened to me” isn’t synonymous with “it never happens”.
https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/birth-control...
> and the latter seems far less likely if you're doing a regular checkup / going in for a vaccine.
Which most people don’t. Regardless, I’ve had doctors I know personally describe to me how certain colleagues are bad physicians who nevertheless make a ton of money for the hospital/clinic because they order a ton of unnecessary procedures. Yes, even when going for routine checks.
> Either way the benefits of vaccines are obvious
Which is true, but also has nothing to do with the conversation. No one in this thread has mentioned vaccines before you did just now. The article doesn’t mention it either. I’m not an anti vaxxer, nor have I assumed you were.
No, but it's a relevant data point that allows you to counterbalance possible sampling bias.
If everyone tells you people are poisoning halloween candy all the time, but no one within your direct experience encounters it, you should investigate possible sampling bias. Perhaps you are in a privileged context that avoids poison halloween candy, so the sampling bias is in your local environment. Or perhaps such stories easily go viral, so the sampling bias is in people's tendency to share sensational stories. Either way, you have something to watch for.
Relying on multiple weakly-correlated information channels is a good way to hedge yourself against dysfunction in any one of those channels.
I'm thinking the ones they describe are a lost cause and should be removed from the profession.