Let's Talk Logic

Making sense of "anti-vaxxers"

So-called “anti-vaxxers” are routinely dismissed, ridiculed, and maligned for being anti-science, which is to say, for refusing to “follow the science.” What does that actually mean, though? Follow the science!!!

Photo by CDC on Unsplash

As someone who began questioning vaccine safety a whole decade before the term “anti-vaxxer” trolled its way out of Pharma’s PR departments into public discourse (which, interestingly, was about the same time Bobby Kennedy stepped into the conversation), let me tell you what it sounds like from my end.

It sounds like I’m being told it’s wise to blindly trust the system.

It sounds like I’m being told rational people don’t question the Experts.

It sounds like I’m being told intelligent people don’t notice holes in the claims of the Science™ much less ask about them.

It sounds like I’m being told logical people accept that the same vaccine makers who pay massive criminal fines for fraudulent practices in their drug manufacturing should be presumed honest and innocent in their vaccine manufacturing (where they have no liability).

Call me stupid or crazy, but I’m not willing to assume these pharmaceutical giants, who’ve all been prosecuted for putting corporate profits ahead of consumer safety, have the integrity to staff their vaccine divisions with only the most honest scientists and decision makers. Am I to believe they screen their people for scruples and cluster the best on the vaccine side? Am I to trust that the liability shield, which not only indemnifies their products but keeps their data conveniently hidden from legal scrutiny, provides them no powerful perverse incentives?

Logic would tell me no. Logic would tell me question everything! Logic would tell me rational people look for sensible answers, and they use inductive and deductive reasoning.

In fact, most people who question vaccine safety do so because they were confronted with evidence that vaccines aren’t as “safe and effective” as they were promised. Quite often that evidence comes in the form of experiencing or witnessing a serious health issue that began soon after receiving a vaccine, which basic logic thus dictates could be the cause. In other words, they see a correlation and it leads them to wonder about causation. The medical establishment and its disciples like to dismiss this thoughtful approach as untrustworthy because “it’s anecdotal evidence” and they insist “correlation does not equal causation!” which is true. But I live in a world where the logical response to a sudden health problem is to figure out what caused it. And since the only way to investigate that is to critically examine correlations, it is illogical to dismiss a super obvious one just because the disciples of Science™ say Don’t look there, the Experts have declared there’s nothing to see. When you point out the obvious—that every body is different and no drug is 100% safe—they illogically proclaim: Your mileage doesn’t vary. And then, when you point out that those Experts have clear conflicts of interest and ties to vaccine makers they scoff and dismiss you as a “cOnSpIrAcY ThEoRiSt.”

So, speaking of anecdotes and disciples and illogical claims, let’s take a look at the “logic” of the other side.

It never ceases to amaze me how often people who insist vaccines work also insist that the unvaccinated must be segregated so they don’t get others sick. Ookay. Clearly they don’t believe their own “safe and effective” schtick. And then there are the pro-vaxxers who routinely assert, with the straight face of utter certainty: No one knows what causes autism but WE’RE POSITIVE IT’S NOT VACCINES. Because, you know, Science™.

I also remember a time, only twenty years ago in fact, when maternal medicine was adamant that women should be cautious about what they eat, drink, and otherwise expose themselves to during pregnancy because fetal development can be harmed by toxic exposures. Logically, this warning presumptively included all vaccines since they all are formulated with toxic ingredients. Not so logically, pregnant women are given the same warnings today, but they are also told that some vaccines during pregnancy are safe and recommended. What they are not told is that those vaccines will be administered “off-label," meaning they are not licensed for use during pregnancy because there have been no clinical trials to demonstrate safety for pregnant women and their babies. In fact, the vaccine manufacturers themselves do not recommend them during pregnancy.

And she isn’t just exposing herself to toxins—she is exposing her baby to them, too. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines-pregnancy/moms-to-be/index.html

In order to make their suspect safety claims, public health officials rely on lab rat experiments and post-marketing observational studies. While both show that babies exposed in utero to the recommended vaccines are not miscarried or born with major birth defects at higher rates than normal, neither method can be considered proof of safety because there is no way to assess what hidden adverse impacts these toxic exposures might have in developing babies, including to their various organs or systems—neurological, immune, digestive, etc.. But apparently that doesn’t matter, because we now live in a world of “logic” where the Science™ supports the CDC recommending all pregnant women accept off-label injections of toxic ingredients as best practice for the wellbeing of their babies.

One does wonder how the human race survived before Pharma came on the scene.

Truthfully, there’s always more to say about vaccine safety and the assertions of the Science™ but it’s getting (very) late so I’ll wind down with this last thought related to this week’s hearings on Capitol Hill.

I saw this Note critiquing some pro-Science™ logic from Senator Bill Cassidy, a physician and Chair of one of the Senate committees tasked with questioning Bobby Kennedy for his appointment to run the Department of Health and Human Services:

Given the reflexive dismissal of anecdotal evidence by True Believers of the Science™—which Senator Cassidy clearly is—I found it interesting that his witness of one young woman’s potentially avoidable suffering created certainty for him that newborns in America should be vaccinated against a disease for which 99.9 percent of them are not at risk. According to his logic, one 18 year old’s health tragedy means all day-old infants should have their own health risked by injecting toxins—including a known neurotoxin (aluminum)—into their their tiny bodies, just in case. And this despite the fact that newborn immune systems are not fully developed. Unlike adults, the adaptive function capable of recognizing antigens and remembering them for future exposures—which is the entire mechanism and point of a vaccine—is not active. Additionally, as Redshaw points out, Hep b artificial immunity may well be worn off by the time they reach an age when they might engage in the risky behaviors linked to hepatitis transmission, so their birth shot is likely all risk for no protection.

I restacked that Note with this additional observation:

Lastly, in response to Senator Cassidy’s impassioned effort to force out of Kennedy a denial of any possible link between vaccines and America’s ongoing autism epidemic, I saw this fabulous response by Del Bigtree, CEO of ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network) in which he addresses the good doctor’s concerns directly. I hope Senator Cassidy sees and watches it (you can, too, by clicking the link in the caption below it).

To watch click HERE

So yeah, for anyone who really wants to understand what creates an “anti-vaxxer,” that’s the story: We do not follow the Science™, we follow the logic. And call me a fool, but I reject the preposterous notion that I need a degree in medicine or vaccinology to ask obvious questions or make rational critiques; that would be to credit the illogical presumption that science and reason belong to Experts. Logic tells me otherwise.