First of all, I would like to thank MarchHare for answering my question. I asked an honest question, and got an honest answer, which is usually the basis of a rational dialogue. I have not been following this issue as closely as many of you have.
I did look into the history of the banning of Thimerosal, and it was interesting that before the Jenny McCarthy incident, the discussion was primarily between scientists under the pay of "Big Pharma" and scientists questioning the composition of the vaccines themselves. This led to the limiting and elimination of heavy metal aluminum in vaccines and and inquiry into the presence of mercury and squalene. A slow process, encumbered by legalities, but one that eventually seemed to be forcing the production of safer vaccines.
Questioning science shouldn't be confused with rejecting science, or discouraged. If an answer isn't already out there, it's an opportunity to find one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by strombad
Question Science
Claim to be of a pro-vaccine stance while preaching less criticism of the anti-vax crowd and more criticism of science. Claim critical thinking is important, but can't be bother to think critically about both sides of the argument, so they sit essentially in the middle. Generally untrusting of 'Big Pharm' or regulated bodies that may profit. Science is secondary to critical thinking.
I don't know what I find more bothersome, the anti-vaccine crowd or the pseudo intellectual crowd that praise critical thinking and 'what if' over cold, hard evidence. On one hand, you have the anti-vaccine crowd. Their a fun bunch, similar to (as previously stated) the 'world is flat' group, and 'cigarettes aren't bad at all!' group. Both looked on historically with laughter. On the other? The great 'voices of reason'! Capable, apparently, of greater critical thinking than the general population. Ironically, these people are only actually critical of science, and take a stance that (while not directly defending anti-vaxx) looks more favourably on a position where absolutely no critical thinking is utilised to come to their conclusion (anti-vax) over a position that is the most logically sound with or without critical thinking.
In short, yeah, we get it, you don't trust big pharm but you get vaccinated anyway, clearly you're misunderstanding the conversation if you think you're some how more intellectually sound than pro-vaxx. If anything, you're much closer to the anti-vaxx crowd than the crowd that can ACTUALLY use critical thinking and scientific information to come to their conclusion.
I swear, the "Wow you pro-vaxxers are mean!" crowd would pipe down if we were making fun of someone who said "The sun isn't hot," which, frankly, is about as sound of a claim as "vaccines are more dangerous than not getting them (autism!!!!)".
|
This sort of thing is non-productive. My distaste for what you coin 'Big Pharma' comes from my own inquiry into the current research and treatment of cancer. An unrelated subject, but with many of the same players.