[flagged]
It's very easy to believe that pharmaceutical companies employ scientists to disclaim danger. But that fact alone doesn't mean that pharmaceuticals are dangerous. We use research and evidence to make decisions about how dangerous a given product is, and we weight that against its benefits.
The same is true for any industry. I would add to your list of examples cars and social media. You will note that we continue to use cars, despite the fact that a world without cars would be safer.
I'm amazed at the bristling when the possibility that vaccines are dangerous is brought up. As it relates to your car analogy - can you imagine someone reacting similarly to the claim that cars are dangerous, car manufacturers know this and downplay it, and they could possibly be made safer?
Despite this, we are faced with this incredible resistance to them. People want to take this stuff away from us. This would kill millions. There is no legitimate reason to bring up the possibility that vaccines are dangerous anymore. Anyone who does so is either ignorant or malicious. Either way, doing your helps the people who would kill millions if they got their way.
Is it really a surprise that people bristle when you take the side of megadeaths?
How do you think people should respond when presented with opposition to widely used, safe, effective, life-saving medications, when that opposition is completely unfounded on evidence? "Bristling" seem an appropriate response.
People would probably respond similarly if you proposed, say, to ban plumbing systems.
Beautiful strawman, bravo.
Fyi, that's not a strawman. A strawman fallacy is when I refute an argument that you didn't make. The line you responded to is an analogy.
Funny how it's always new accounts coming along with postures of extreme worldly wisdom about corporate malfeasance or misaligned incentives, but displaying complete cluelessness about the manifold institutional responses and copious public health statistics that are equally relevant. Why should I take you seriously when you only apply your critical faculties to one side of the picture and studiously ignore the other half?
I don’t say this just to be snarky, but many of us are grateful for this medical miracle, and are more likely to forgive those scientists and not be happy with anyone working on tobacco.
That's not the question I asked though.
The opposite is true of tobacco etc.
That doesn't mean there aren't dangers to vaccines, or that they could be made safer, or, that the pharmaceutical industry is complicit in masking the dangers.
I just don’t trust RFK Jr to be the person to tell us about vaccine safety. I’d personally need some pretty convincing evidence to change my mind.
For example he holds on to long debunked claims about vaccines and autism that have been repeatedly studied and refuted.
Anything credible that refutes their position inevitably results in them claiming that nothing has been proven and that more research is required. It's clearly bad faith and obvious that there is no amount of evidence that will close the book on the subject for them.
It's all just exhausting, and if it wasn't for the growing outbreaks of preventable diseases I would encourage people to break the cycle and stop arguing with them.
What is more likely,
(1) the scientists/doctors in the world genuinely believe vaccines are safe AND we see in front of our own eyes routine, safe vaccination. The odd medical issue that happens at the same time is actually mostly coincidence - autism is often diagnosed at the same age that routine childhood vaccination happens.
Or
(2) these scientists are all in cahoots with Big Pharma and a disease happening rarely at the same age as vaccination is NOT coincidental. All the supposed vaccine safety boards that try to find safety issues are corrupt and we can’t trust them.
Add to (2) oh but we can trust this guy over here RFK Jr.
My prior would be (1) and I would need a lot of evidence to move to 2.
I think a lot of people fall for the Cynical Genius illusion where non trusting people look smarter
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/trust-games/202111/t...
The weird thing for me reading this is that I have never, ever defaulted to assuming that cynical people are smart(er). I grew up reading WIRED cover to cover, back when that meant something, and if anything I was slightly on the side of naive optimism so I tend to perceive cynics as having an unsettling vibe.
Anyhow, I feel like your hot take is generally reasonable. I have very little patience for people who say "question everything" but in reality they only seem to question things that tend to have fringe conferences in airport hotels. Again: exhausting, and the older I get, the more inclined I am to just let them die of dysentery on the trail.
You're not wrong here. However, this criticism applies to a vast majority of individuals involved in the discussion, no matter what side they're on.
As an example, take the other comments on this post about how "aluminum is ingested by people all the time" -> it is absolutely safe in all forms and interactions.
This lack of rigor from the pro-vax hoi polloi gives an anti-vax-inclined individual possessing the slightest amount of critical thinking a great vaulting point.
Pharma companies behaving like tobacco companies does not imply that vaccines are dangerous and should be withdrawn. Those are two separate questions. Thinking vaccines are amazing lifesaving inventions doesn’t imply thinking pharma companies are saints.
I don't think I said that anywhere, did I?
Also, describing anyone supportive of modern medicine as “pharmacist sympathizers” is reflective of quite a bit of bias of your own, no?
I’d be somewhat more amenable to the idea that the pharma corps were the bad guy here, I think my post history shows I’m solidly anti corporate, but I can’t get past all the logical inconsistencies and errors in the anti vax crowds side.
Like look at RFKs critique here. The study was on weather or not vaccines cause autism in children. RFK critiqued this because they excluded dead children who were the “most likely to be harmed”(paraphrase).
That is a logical error, he’s complaining that the study didn’t study things the study wasn’t studying. Why am I supposed to take people seriously when the bedrock of their arguments are ludicrous?
> The exclusion included all children who died before age two, those diagnosed early with respiratory conditions, and an astonishing 34,547 children — 2.8% of the study population — whose vaccination records showed the highest aluminum exposure levels.
> ... The authors, without explanation, deemed these high exposures “implausible,” even though those implausibly high exposures are routine for American children who follow the recommended immunization schedule.
I'm not arguing the study should be retracted, but asking why those high exposure children were excluded seems reasonable. Also, the children who died presumably died at some point after receiving vaccinations. Excluding them entirely seems like it could miss potential harm and seems relevant to the studies purpose of links to chronic disease.
I agree with you that vaccines are beneficial. It still makes sense to understand the tradeoffs and ask reasonable questions about potential harms.
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/flawed-science-bought-conclu...
I'm just curious about how many intelligent people take pharma company statements, or conclusions they've paid researchers for, as gospel.
(I'm being rate limited, as you noticed in your other comment. Yes I am here in good faith, no I am not ragebaiting. I don't have permanent accounts on HN to avoid doxxing, thanks for your concern, hope you can drop the ad hominems and focus on the discussion at hand)
Anyway, we’re not taking the pharma company’s word as gospel, that’s why people are looking at scientific studies which can be analyzed and falsified in a reproduction. The alternative in this situation is either doing nothing, in which case what is there to discuss, or taking RFKs word as gospel and he is historically a crank, his argument is logically flawed, and critically, he’s brought no counter evidence or science on his side.
He just doesn’t like the results of the study and wants it to go away