I see vaccines in here a lot, and I respect that we need continuing diversity of viewpoints on voat- particularly in this sub. I don't mean to be antagonistic, but provide my viewpoint as a scientist.

The article opens with drug resistant bugs in medical institutions along with oveer-prescribing doctors and the pathetic state of western media. These are all very true from what I understand. Most telling to me is that we don't use copper for handrails, door knobs, and other common surfaces (copper essentially kills microorganisms), likely because it 'costs too much' to provide an actually safe environment.

Taken point wise:

1. Make it clear that parents who choose not to vaccinate their children are only getting their information from Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carey and other celebrities with absolutely no scientific credentials.~~

   The author mentions several doctors listing their credentials and belief in the dangers of vaccines. Doctors can believe whatever they want, their role is to diagnose disorders-not produce research. Its about the same difference between an electrician and an architect. A researcher/scientist makes the idea as an architect, and the doctor prescribes the right pattern of wiring (treatment).

   It's not even the doctor's job to effectively deliver medication, that's a pharmacist's job: to keep you from taking drug combinations that will kill you (which doctors frequently prescribe, not knowing mechanisms of action beyond their initial training).

2. Always equate the views of the CDC, medical journals and pharmaceutical company spokespeople with “science.” Some people will try to tell you that science is a method, not a conclusion, that scientific truths cannot be determined by consensus or by appeal to authority, but you can just ignore them.~~

   While you might have a good case for denying the CDC credibility (government agency after all), and pharmaceutical companies (profit.), medical journals -are- science. That's where research goes, which are individual contributions of scientific knowledge.

The worst part is the 'some people' section. I'm not sure the author understands the dangers of crowdthink and authoritarian worship if continually demonstrated facts are scary to them.

The truth is: No. If you are not qualified, you are not qualified. Years spent learning a topic on your own don't compare to years spent learning the topic through trial and error on the subject. I see this kind of behavior from undergraduates sometimes, they believe they understand a topic just because they saw a 101 section on it. Scientific consensus is rare, and if you take consensus to be 100% it's never ever happened.

Sure you can find scientists who disagree, but that's a very small list they link.

1. Remind your readers that, however heart wrenching or tragic, anecdotal accounts are just that. They are not scientific, they don’t say anything about relative risk, and should play no role in influencing your opinion about vaccines. ~~ Relative risk is subjective. People remember stories of pain and loss stronger; take the very common story of a young person dying in a drunk driving accident. This case is almost the inverse, it's so common that its almost lost its emotional pull. The 'many' cases of problems after vaccination are attention grabbing precisely because they are rare.

Take for example the thousands of stories from parents whose children were perfectly healthy until they received one or more vaccines and then suddenly lost the ability to speak, to walk, to feed themselves, or who started having seizures, stopped breathing or died. Many of the parents in these cases report that their doctors insist the vaccines had nothing to do with their child’s injury, even when no other explanation is apparent. Indeed, the vaccine manufacturers and the CDC insist that most such cases are simply coincidences and have nothing to do with the vaccines. But given the well-documented degree of conflict of interest and fraudulent practices within the CDC and the medical research community as a whole, many parents are understandably skeptical of such claims.~~

Also take for example the lack of statistical controls, sample sizes, correlative effects (such as a child's age of vaccination for school and the early detection window for autism), or [again] lack of scientific training by parents. Death is terrible to have happen to a child, but people are altogether too good at seeing patterns that do not exist, and having opinions on topics they really don't know anything about.

1. Remind your readers that “correlation is not causation.” ~~ Ah, here it is-the one thing everyone remembers from statistics class. The two graphs noticable don't control for vectors of infection such as changes in living conditions, medical theory and practice, and social health from.. when? 1900? They go on to mention 1950's views on measles as a mild condition everyone got as a child then overcame. Nevermind that the whole landscape of contagious diseases and antibiotic overuse conflates this.

The article's getting a bit repetitive now so I'll get to the point.

1. Whenever possible, present the debate as if there are no legitimate reasons to choose not to vaccinate – only “personal beliefs” and “irrational fears.”~~ There are legitimate reasons to debate any topic. But when you go against an entire body of evidence and knowledge based on personal beliefs, anecdotes, a flawed understanding of inferential statistics, and a wild distrust of things outside your experience you end up battling nearly everything.

I'm not a proponent of forcing vaccinations. I'm not a proponent of forcing much of anything. I just can't believe that so many people suddenly think they've become experts on topics just because they can read the words, google the ones they don't know, and think that gives them the whole idea of it.

I don't blame them. Western media is awful, the internet has no guarantees to accuracy, and the actual research is locked up behind paywalls. There just seems to be some kind of intermediary missing from the picture.