You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Vaccines are a good thing: refuting antivaxxer arguments

in #antivax • 7 years ago

I too have noticed the preponderance of "woo", pseudo-science and anti-vax on Steemit, it's a bit disheartening BUT they are not the only people here and in the end science doesn't care what you believe it just works.

Now the thing is to use science (as in the scientific method of experimentation etc) to find an effective way to change and enlighten minds.

I'm with you! RESTEEMED, voted and followed!

7 years ago in #antivax by
$0.00
    Reply 6
    Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     7 years ago 

    Thanks for that :)

    It's a sad fact that when you support free speech you have to support it for those you disagree with or even hate, and I wouldn't want to change steemit to take away the antivax views for the very reason that I support free speech for all.

    The correct response to this stuff is not censorship (that just makes martyrs), but open refutation. I encourage people to speak out and refute this nonsense whenever they see it.

    $19.56
    • Past Payouts $19.56
    • - Author $14.81
    • - Curators $4.76
    2 votes
    Reply
    [-]
     7 years ago 

    Indeed, remaining silent implies agreement. Speaking out is necessary.

    $0.00
      Reply
      [-]
       7 years ago 
      $0.00
        Reply
        [-]
         7 years ago 

        In his book "Bad Science" Ben Goldacre(who is not an anti-vaxxer) Author, journalist, physician, science writer and scientist speaks of the lack of scientific rigour applied to medical practices, here is a snippet from wikipedia

        The book remarks on the relatively low percentage of conventional medical activity (50 to 80%) which could be called "evidence-based". The efforts of the medical profession to weed out bad treatments are seen to be hampered by the withholding or distortion of evidence by drug companies. The science and economics of drug development are outlined, with criticism of the lack of independence of industrial research and the neglect of Third World diseases. Some underhand tricks used by drug companies to engineer positive trial results for their products are explored. The publication bias produced by researchers not publishing negative results is illustrated with funnel plots. Examples are made of the SSRI antidepressants and Vioxx drugs. Reform of trials registers to prevent abuses is proposed. The ethics of drug advertising and manipulation of patient advocacy groups are questioned.

        I've always wondered how you do a double-blind study on vaccines, do you know of any?
        I think you should always be a careful consumer of medicine because of the history the medical profession getting things very wrong while claiming "science" the whole time.
        Of course being careful doesn't only apply to western medicine as this book shows, he even "debunks" homeopathy(I used quotation marks to denote debunks as a verb as opposed to a fait accompli).

        $0.00
          Reply
          [-]
           7 years ago 

          You inject saline for placebo group.

          Then you measure incidence of illness.

          $0.00
            Reply
            [-]
             7 years ago 

            That might prove something if you then exposed them to infection.
            Any actual double-blind studies following your methodology(with a large enough sample size of course)?

            $0.00
              Reply