pull down to refresh
Don't you understand that all those tens of thousands so-called scientists and doctors with their PhDs and MDs are being paid by Big Vax? /s
I'm not trying to be caustic, because there are circumstances where such reactions are sensible. In every case I can think of, it's something like:
- field {x} assumes a bunch of context that starts to seem so obvious that nobody bothers even thinking about it or talking about it any more
- practitioners in field {x} do legit science, conditioned on those assumptions
- a body of evidence accumulates that becomes canon
All well and good. But a person might reasonably say: well, what if you challenge the original assumptions in step 1? What if you operate outside the given ubiquitous context?
Some of the more egregious anti-fat hysteria that swept up the cardiometabolic health space in the 90s especially is an example of this. (Okay, you've shown fat is terrible in these ways; but what if you're not also living a toxic modern lifestyle, then how bad is it?) Some of the excesses of financialization and fiat money that you're no doubt familiar with might be considered another [1].
Point is, there may be some anti-vax equivalent to this pattern that has a reasonable basis. If so, I'd like to hear what it is.
[1] It's also worth noting is that the responses to legit critique often turn just as pathological as the original problem. Any bitcoiner with a brain should be able to rattle off an infinite number of examples.
Are you asking me, specifically, why I'm not not a believer in the safety/efficacy of vaccines in general?
If so, as a starting point I'd point you to the recent interview that Aaron Siri gave on the Dark Horse podcast (with Brett Weinstein). The interview was fascinating. It's not where I started, but it's a good intro and it's very recent.
Since you apparently believe that the institution of science writ large is all conspiracy and bunk, at least wrt vaccines, and the process of science includes about a zillion papers having been written, with methods reported, etc., I'm curious about the epistemology by which you read one book that accords with your pre-formed views and decide that it, and nothing else, is the source of truth to be relied on?
And in fact I'm curious about your larger epistemology, since at the beginning of the story you've already arrived at the position stated above. How?