SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From the (boneheaded) editor: My apologies. I pooched this one in a way that is exceptional, even for me. I humbly beg your forgiveness. The line for torches is on the left, and pitchforks is on the right. Please, move on to the next story and don't waste any further time on this one.
Regards,
cmn32480
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I'm wearing PAMPERS!!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tibman on Tuesday March 15 2016, @02:42PM
I think it's because there is almost zero reason not to be vaccinated. Reasons not to get vaccinated are mostly made up bullshit. If you have a compromised immune system then you can still get vaccinated. You'll just want the dead version instead of the live (and more effective) version. If you are allergic to one of the key ingredients then you may not be able to be vaccinated, but that is nothing against vaccines and is against the delivery method. If there was a credible reason not to be vaccinated then the majority wouldn't be so "don't argue, just do it".
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday March 15 2016, @04:04PM
If there was a credible reason not to be vaccinated then the majority wouldn't be so "don't argue, just do it".
I was a new parent during the "mercury wars" (in the 2001-2005 timeframe) at the beginning there was a strong "don't argue, just do it" sentiment about mercury in vaccines, fillings, light bulbs, etc. The majority opinion in early 2001 was that only kooks are worried about mercury, and it was even stronger in the mid 1990s. Fast forward 10 years and all the same actors who were saying "don't worry about mercury" have reversed position and you'd now be a kook if you accepted mercury in almost anything that has an alternative.
We've gone through similar "revelations" about industrial lead, arsenic, asbestos, and DDT if your memory goes back that far - it starts with a general "technology X is beneficial, benefits far outweigh the risks or negative consequences, only very rare edge cases ever show any negative impact..." and slowly swings around to ads on billboards for lawyers who will get your family compensation for injury related to exposure...
I'm not saying that all vaccines are about to be revealed as some sort of health catastrophe. Their benefits clearly far outweigh the negative consequences to society as a whole, but the parallels in public opinion for vaccines and other "miracle technologies" that have later been abandoned are striking.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday March 15 2016, @05:29PM
That's a very fair assessment. But i think you can't excluded where the message is coming from. Monsanto telling you something is good to eat is different than the FDA and that is different than the (actually independent) scientific studies. Neonicotinoids, i'm looking at you!
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @07:29PM
Holy Jebbush, you appear to not have realised that the FDA is in the pockets of big agro and big pharma. I wouldn't trust the FDA further than I could check the source of the funding behind the studies they promote.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday March 15 2016, @10:16PM
Scientific studies are also in the pockets of big agro. So please notice my ordering from least reliable to greatest.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.