From an earlier discussion with someone defending State Farms choice of Rob Schneider as spokesperson. This may be the most thorough explanation of my position on vaccines to date. It also describes my general epistemic position where regards scientific consensus. Thanks for your response. Since you arent interested in debate, I wont waste too much of your time. I will, however, submit that your use of the word research is very unscientific. In the context of science, nothing you could do from your computer at home would constitute immunological research. (More colloquially, controls or gtfo). Personally, I have a formal background in food microbiology, and a more-than-reasonable understanding of the general language of science. Even given that, I struggle to read a paper in very similar fields. I can barely read an immunological research paper for content, and only general papers, nothing in a terribly specific subfield. If you were ever to attend a scientific conference youd notice a couple of things that are uncommon outside of science. First, when a person is called upon to speak on an issue outside their field, they clamp down. They hem and haw and say This isnt my field, so I could be way off base here, but... Youd also notice that consensus is very, very hard to achieve. There is tremendous pressure in the scientific community to overturn consensus. Post-conference talks are like a gladiatorial arena. Its basically a massive, consensual, nerdy S&M activity [A metaphor I stole from Ben Goldacres Battling Bad Science TED talk]. Scientists are the most skeptical group of people in the world, and you can rest assured that a paper confirming the safety or efficacy of a given vaccine passes through the same skeptical process as a paper refuting the safety or efficacy of a given vaccine. Thus, when a consensus emerges, it implies that a vast majority of the experts bent on disagreeing with one another have looked at the various data, and all come to the same conclusion. That said, if you can show me an example of research that has 1) been conducted under reasonable experimental conditions, 2) passed peer review, and 3) demonstrates that the risks associated with vaccination outweigh the benefits, I will immediately change my position, and youll never hear me defend my current position again. Until such time, Im going to have to agree with every major scientific organization in the world, and support the widespread use of vaccination in the prevention of disease. Note: I should have added that, like Rob Schneider, I do support parental consent. The concerns of parents should always be taken seriously, and bodily autonomy should overrule medical consensus. Widespread vaccination should be achieved through improved science communication, rather than government mandates.
Posted on: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:36:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015