vaccattack

Posted On February 16, 2015 By In Uncategorized And 704 Views

Much needed sanity in the vaccine “debate”

This article written by Kevin Geary Founder of RebootedBody.com really brings some pertinent questions and much needed sanity into the current media driven vaccine “debate” we currently are facing in the the Dinosaur Media realm. Here are some of my favourite parts of the article:

“Let’s fix the misuse of the word ‘consensus’.”

The Definition: An idea or opinion that is shared by *all* the people in a group. (Edit: Yes, I’m fully aware of how it’s *commonly* used. I’m also emphasizing this point because…)

How it’s used in the vaccine debate: An idea or opinion that is shared by *a majority* of the people in a group (as the primary argument to shout down oppositional opinions and crowd out oppositional research).

Why it matters: There have been countless times in history where the majority of scientists and researchers agreed and were wrong. Also, using the term “consensus” in this way is always dangerous in the realm of scientific research because there is an automatic obedience to authority for the simple reason that most people are not truly educated on complex matters of science.

A famous example of the consensus error is called the Semmelweis Reflex. Ignaz Semmelweis was a doctor who found—and argued—that hand-washing by doctors reduced child bed fever mortality rates ten-fold.

It turns out that medical doctors (the trusted authority) used to perform autopsies and then see patients, including pregnant women, without washing their hands. This was the widely accepted practice at the time and Semmelweis objected to it. He was eventually shouted down and run into an insane asylum (literally) by his peers for advocating something that is blatantly obvious to us today.

The “consensus” argument was used as a weapon to defeat Semmelweis. But “consensus” is not an argument and using it as one is a logical fallacy. If you want to argue for the validity of vaccination, do so. But saying, “there’s a scientific consensus” isn’t a valid argument, especially when you’re misusing the word “consensus.”

He even brings the Non-Aggression Principle into the discussion.

“Let’s get something else out of the way: violence can’t be your answer.”

Not everyone advocates for vaccinating people against their will, but many do. One of the [legitimate] fears among those who don’t vaccinate is that vaccine advocates will use the power of government to force vaccination compliance.

If you want to be taken seriously, you can’t possibly support this because it directly contradicts your own beliefs about your body and your rights.

Even though many people have never heard of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), they agree with it when it’s presented to them.

Forced vaccination does not adhere to the NAP. If you agree with the NAP and are also for forced vaccination, you’re contradicting your own beliefs.

We’re all adults here. Sell your position with reason, don’t cram it down people’s throats (or lock them in rooms and inject their children with it).

I guess this is a good place to throw in this, too: If you’re “pro-choice” when it comes to abortion, then you can’t be anti-choice when it comes to vaccines. That’s just silliness. “It’s my body” can’t only apply to killing babies.

Read the full article <here>

One Response

  1. Pingback: We Are Change Victoria WACV Movie Night – "Shots in the Dark: Silence of Vaccine"

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


seven − = 2