It happens virtually without exception. In a debate of this nature, the losing side does one of two things: 1) slumps away, lacking the courage to admit defeat (and never to be heard from again); or 2) resorts to using name-calling/put-down name-labeling ("a paid shill") when referring to an opponent. I have never been guilty of that offense on this thread. (BTW, aren't there rules on this site against that kind of abuse?) That is what's happening here, and it's understandable; i.e., unable to win the argument on points, the anti recourse is to attack the opponent personally. The "anti's" lose the argument based on just one of any number of factors (take your choice): 1) The documented, certified record of the effectiveness of vaccination in preventing disease—an effectiveness involving millions of lives and decades of experience. About a month ago, I posted a tabulation showing dramatic decreases in the incidence of diseases after the implementation of vaccination programs. That evidence cannot be refuted. In several posts I asked the "anti's" by what means the polio epidemic was ended. I cannot recall receiving a single credible response. 2) Almost without exception, the sources the "anti's" use are deeply flawed. Natural News survives by running display ads for wacko products that no responsible publication would touch. Then there is Dr. Blaylock (he still believes the 50-year-old myth that fluoridated water is dangerous to one's health); Dr. Wakefield (Brian Deer did not err when he reported on Wakefield's raison d'etre for undertaking the "study," nor did he err when he listed the exorbitant sums Wakefield received for his services [which were tendered to win a court case for the children's families]); and Dr. Joseph Mercola (a quack from w-a-y back). These and their ilk constitute the "anti's" sources . . . discredited, self-proclaimed experts whom legitimate medical scientists avoid in droves. 3) The end-run attempt by Bee Prepared, in which she stated that all the "anti's" want is freedom of choice. That position puts at risk (as the Disneyland measles outbreak demonstrated) public health, inasmuch as unvaccinated children are prone to contract a disease and pass it on to other unvaccinated children, thus laying the foundation for epidemics. It is, to be charitable, a "community be damned" mindset. 4) The meretricious, crude suggestion that fetuses are being aborted in order to supply tissue for manufacturing vaccine—an utterly ludicrous notion that merits universal condemnation. 5) The fundamental error in inductive reasoning, in which a fraction of a fraction of negative vaccine incidents becomes justification for making all vaccination programs non-mandatory, thus (as I say above) setting the stage for epidemics. 6) The arrogant position that the "anti's" know more about vaccine and its effects on the human body than do the medical scientists who are devoting their lives to that very discipline. 7) The "anti's" pervasive conviction that government agencies, independent researchers and labs, university professors, and (gasp) Big Pharma are all liars and obsessed only with making money.Bee Prepared wrote:Hey caddis, we agree on something! Can you take me off your foe list, it really hurts my feelings. :))caddis wrote:Haha. I've been pondering he/she being a paid shill. Pretty much the only topic he/she has anything to say is this one. Digs up an old thread just to spout big pharm propaganda.light-one wrote:Maybe sweatwater14 should apply for the job of vaccine test guppie, although it probably doesn't pay as well as misinformation spreader.
I think it was Alexander Pope who said, "A mind convinced against its will, is of the same opinion still." Pope's statement has been validated countless times, and it is validated once again on this thread.