Quote:
Originally Posted by AcGold
tying the potential for harm with their efficacy is a mistake though.
|
What? What else would you use to evaluate if something should be used or not? If a drug saves 1 million lives and one out of every 1 million that receive the drug is harmed by it, that's the only way to evaluate such things.
All people do this every day all day long, evaluating potential for harm vs the effectiveness of what they want to do. One is vastly more likely to be harmed in a car accident vs. taking a vaccine yet cars are effective at getting one to work on time.
What is your alternative way to evaluate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcGold
I've read a reasonable amount on the subject and don't see much if at all any addressing the scientific and logical basis for how they can be harmful.
|
Interesting, because in the actual science the harm portion is recorded and tracked and studied and laid out in detail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcGold
Not sure why the need to tie their efficacy and autism though, not that I think it even causes it, just have a reasonable doubt that they are harmless.
|
Nothing is harmless, just breathing carries risks. When evaluating risks of harm, that evaluation has to be made against something else, not against a ideal harmless situation (otherwise it's the
nirvana fallacy).