I am so tired of reading through propaganda on both sides of this debate. I'm against vaccines but it's very difficult to gather evidence when you have to weed through half as much angry rhetoric as you do actual scientific literature. On the flip side whenever I read anything promoting vaccines I find just as much biased material and propaganda. Pro vaccine advocates claim to be "scientific" and make all kinds of claims against anti-vaccine advocates but half the time they can't even make logical arguments let alone sort state propaganda from facts.
For the Pro - Vaccine Advocates
Stop assuming anti vaccine advocates don't care about their children's health or that of the general community. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anti vaccine advocates are in fact motivated to oppose vaccines so that they can preserve their children's health, and often by extension, the health of the population at large. Besides it's faulty logic to speculate on motive of people you haven't met without actually talking to them.
Stop assuming anti vaccine advocates are "unscientific". Those who oppose vaccines do extensive research, look up vaccine ingredient lists, research the toxic effects of chemicals on the human body, analyze dosages, learn about immunology, and listen to countless lectures given by doctors. In short they do extensive scientific research in order to come to their conclusions. Science is by it's very nature a process of questioning and criticism. Just because there are those criticizing vaccines doesn't make them unscientific. In fact if anything it makes them more so.
Do not assume that all anti vaccine advocates are religious or uneducated. We're not.
Consider that it's not just about antibodies. Vaccines also contain many chemical toxins such as aluminum, fermaldehyde and mercury, not to mention numerous biological substances like animal and human DNA. It's not just about how a child or adult might react to bacteria or viruses. It's also about everything else in the vaccine. And it's also about the matter of medical consent. Being opposed to vaccines is about multiple issues, both medical and ethical.
Consider there are other ways to increase one's immune response besides vaccines. There are many herbs and plants that do this as well as getting the proper nutrition. And then there is also proper sanitation to consider. Just because someone doesn't want to vaccinate does not mean they don't care about their health or health of their child or is actively engaged in promoting said health.
Consider that the sources you cite are often funded by vaccine manufacturers, either directly or indirectly. Double check your source's bias.
Andrew Wakefield is just one doctor. He is not the end all be all of debates. There are many doctors and nurses that oppose vaccines and more are mounting every day.
Read the package inserts from the vaccine manufacturers.
For Anti Vaccine Advocates
Cite your sources. It's good for everyone to know where your research came from, even if it's just for the sake of taking notes.
Just because you know something doesn't mean everyone does. Take notes and remember citations.
Record all information. Be specific.
"Big Pharma" is a generalization. It's emotionally evocative but not very specific when one wants to cite an actual act performed by a given company or government agency.
Pro vaccine advocates care about their children too. They are just ignorant.
Remember body sovereignty works both ways. Those who advocate vaccines ironically often are pro-choice liberals. If one is pro - choice one is essentially advocating for one form of health sovereignty just as an anti vaccine advocate is advocating for another. So how can one argue the state not outlaw one medical procedure (abortion) but mandate another (vaccination) when both forcing someone not to get a procedure they want or to get a procedure they don't want is a violation of consent and of one's health sovereignty and therefore to argue in favor of abortion but also in favor of vaccination is hypocrisy. As is arguing to outlaw abortion and outlaw mandatory vaccination. Ironically if people stopped getting vaccinated it would reduce the demand for fetal tissue and be a blow against the abortion industry. And if people stopped getting abortions fetal tissue wouldn't be available to produce vaccines. Essentially we need to choose not to be eugenicists not merely try to prohibit it.
So essentially just look for common ground. Health freedom being one popular point.
Do your history, learn your biology and your botany. Also learn about nutrition and how various nutrients affect the immune system.
Personally I can't stand most pro vaccine propaganda because it leaves out so much data. Like the affect the adjuvants have on the human body or the historical context or the mutation rate of the disease in question. What's the point of getting the flu shot of it's mutated into something new by the time the vaccine is ready? Not only does the flu shot weaken your immune system but also it's ineffective against whatever is going around now. Or it leaves out toxins in the environment that would also compromise the immune system. But I can also see how anti vaccine rhetoric can be frustrating for a vaccine advocate because often a lot of knowledge about the movement is assumed to be known. It's assumed one knows the dangers of aluminum and mercury. It's assumed one knows all the dangerous chemicals in vaccines. It's assumed one has read about the horror stories of vaccine injured children. And it gets tiring to repeat the same message over and over again.
So what I'd encourage both sides to do is remember we're all human and we're all defending our children in our own way. For the pro vaccine advocates: Remember that anti - vaccine advocates are sincerely fighting for the safety and health of their families. They are not being negligent or careless, if anything they are being as diligent as they can be to safeguard their families against a toxic world that is determined to poison them. To the anti vaccine advocates: Yes pro vaccines might be ignorant at times but they too are trying to protect their families. But we can't have health sovereignty unless we can make bad choices as well as good. So what I'd encourage is more respect and communication.
I'd also advise reading the following links.
https://healthcareinamerica.us/did-chinese-scientists-find-autisms-missing-puzzle-piece-2d50be5b9122
I'm looking forward to this documentary series.
Please check out my post fro the other day.
Free video series. the truth about vaccines
They say it will be unbiased but we'll have to wait and see.
Literally every anti-vaccine person I've argued with on Steemit has argued against scientific rigour and used incredibly weak, anecdotal evidence and self-selecting surveys as the basis of their argument. It is not an "assumption" when someone defends their position with unscientific and anti-scientific arguments to say that they are being unscientific. Perhaps your experience has been different, but that has been the entirety of mine.
Half the time when I present scientific papers to a pro vaccine advocate that criticize vaccines, they ignore them. Same goes when I provide lectures given by medical professionals that criticize vaccines, again they are ignored. That's hardly "scientific rigour" when you refuse to acknowledge science that criticizes your position.
In fact I provided links to a site or two that provided such such scientific evidence, complete with citations of scientific papers which you can download as pdfs. And I can get you more information if you'd like.
This post has been ranked within the top 80 most undervalued posts in the first half of Apr 10. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $0.22 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Apr 10 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
You have made some great points here. Thank-you!
I just wanted to say though, that some people are not as science minded and thus feel that they can't speak out about their own negative experiences with vaccines because they don't feel fully equipped to counter the arguments.
However, you don't need to be able to quote scientific studies to share your own stories or vaccine injury.
An anecdote still has value.
For example, if you seemed to be the only one with a story of damage caused immediately after a vaccine, even if you were truly one-in-a-million, that doesn't make it incorrect. If an injury happened right after a vaccine it makes no sense to personally continue vaccinating, even if it is safe for most other people, you have to do what is right for your individual situation.
And then, as people start to share what they might have thought was only their experience, they usually begin to find that the same thing has happened to dozens, hundreds, thousands, and even perhaps millions of other people!
That moves it to the category of "Strong Circumstantial Evidence". If it has happened to multitudes of people within a certain space of time after vaccinations, that is evidence of vaccines being a contributing factor to the injury/death.
(See this video interview of the Criminal District Attornery in Texas talk about he could win a court case with the huge amount of Strong Circumstantial/anecdotal Evidence surrounding vaccines.)
https://steemit.com/health/@canadian-coconut/criminal-d-a-in-texas-nico-lahood-says-vaccines-can-and-do-cause-autism
Thanks for the effort that you put into this post and getting people to think about the consequences.