You were lucky.
Vaccines were originally invented to fight smallpox, which has since been eradicated.
That wouldn't have been the case if everyone decided simply to let smallpox "be" and not get vaccinated.
Its sad when science takes a back seat to feelings, especially when the person you are deciding for has no say in the prospect of potentially getting ill and suffering because of your decision.
Its very trendy right now to flaunt an anti-science philosophy, but I think that is misguided. However, you could say that this is Nature's way of thinning the population -- where those that refuse to embrace protection from disease will ultimately succumb to it.
Ironic, isn't it.
Hello, my name is Gloria and I am Baah's caretaker this weekend.
I think it's great that my little prince of baahrain has taken an interest in this topic, it's one that should be very close to his heart. It's one he takes VERY personally.
Baah has been injured with autism due to a bad batch of the varicella vaccine and as such struggles with a few things like interacting with other people.
Please remember this when speaking with him, after all he is my rambunctious little fellow.
It is unfortunate when science takes a back seat to dogma. I would encourage you to take a more in depth look at what happened to 'smallpox' and it's supposed eradication. Repeating something often does not make it a fact.
The scientific method is about questioning, not dogma. Calling something anti-science, because you don't believe it, does not make it so.
"Its sad when science takes a back seat to feelings" -talltim
Yeah, I see the irony.
I don't know anyone who has had smallpox.
I don't see reports from independent news media about smallpox outbreaks and the consequences.
I don't see people in a panic, wearing face masks and rubber gloves because they are terrified of contracting smallpox.
I'd say that smallpox is eradicated just by empirical observation alone.
You can believe what you want, it doesn't affect my logic or my critical analysis of flawed arguments.
Also, there's Polio.
I don't see any crippled children from polio in the news, or in iron lungs.
That was also vaccinated to extinction.
But there I go again, citing logical arguments :)
There is much that the blind cannot see.
Polio has not been eradicated. It is unfortunate that you do not know this. It is unfortunate that you are so intransigent to knowledge which you do not have.
Iron lungs have been replaced by other technology.
I just did a google search for "smallpox cases 2017". The only "hit" that resulted in a direct case was a researcher who accidentally got infected studying it. That was in 1978.
You'd think in this always-connected world of smartphones and internet connections there would be an immediate alarm and flow of news stories if it were on the loose again.
I did the same search for polio, and only turned up a few cases in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in Africa, Syria, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Not particularly countries that have effective resources to combat such a disease.
But it seems you're emotionally invested in your position, so I won't bother going forward. I don't have unlimited time at my disposal. Believe what you want, reality has a way of intruding anyway.
'I just did a google search' is the most repeated cop out that I see these days. Scanning the first three results on the first page is not research.
I realize this is a difficult and many faceted subject, but dismissing this information because 'muh google' is not an argument, it's an appeal to google, so is that appeal to popularity, appeal from authority, perhaps genetic fallacy?
Interesting, you say I "attack", but I'm just stating an opinion without name-calling or any kind of emotional bluster.
You've replied with a dense paragraph that is difficult to parse, so I'll wait until you clarify with something a bit less bulky and awkward.
If you don't "believe" vaccines work, that's just fine with me - nature has a way of sorting out who has a good immune system. I don't need to lift a finger.
The paragraph is straightforward, and comprehensible to me. It says everything it needs to. Parsing it shouldn't be difficult to a practiced reader. Did you simply not want to attempt to refute the arguments?
"You've replied with a dense paragraph that is difficult to parse, so I'll wait until you clarify with something a bit less bulky and awkward."
I'm not sure where to put this logical fallacy, is it an appeal to stone, or perhaps an appeal to personal incredulity? Facts are sometimes 'bulky and awkward' to those who do not recognize them as such.
Trying to scare people into believing what you believe by saying 'nature will sort you out' is a transparent appeal to emotion, and appeal to threat.
Walls of text aren't conducive to parsing.
Its a pretty simple request. But seeing how emotionally invested you are, I suppose there's no point in pursuing it.
Believe what you want.
"But seeing how emotionally invested you are" You seem to keep repeating this after every cold, calculated, logical statement that I make.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
I parse walls of text all the time. It's only not conducive to parsing if the knowledge of reason isn't present to do it.
Then, finally, there is the difference between yourself and those who choose reason. You see, I don't 'believe', I think and know by using reason.
I'm pointing out the irony in the opinion of the original poster.
If you think that counter-arguments are "attacks", then I suppose you are too emotionally invested to have a logical conversation about the material.
As to your point about "luck", you can invoke any mystery force you'd like. The point is that survivorship bias is very real, and by only focusing on positive outcomes ignores all the potentially bad ones.
If I've never used a seatbelt while in a car, and never have been harmed, it doesn't mean that I'll never be injured. It means that for those cumulative trips I was lucky that there wasn't an accident.
But again, it seems this whole topic is just a tempest in a teacup, so if you can't see my point -- that's fine. Reality will intrude eventually with or without my input.
I see the event horizon of the emotionally-fueled black hole has consumed you.
Believe whatever you want.