Originally Posted by
dr dre
She's a part of IFCN. Worked for organisations that have received funding in part from Bill Gates, The WHO, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, a Singaporean technical university and the Singaporean Science Department. I guess in a conspiracy theorist's mind that makes her "far left". I guess in an anti-vaxxer's mind the opinions of anyone associated with government or or universities or who has been involved with research funded in part by big businesses should be excluded as they're "far left". That would basically rule out every legitimate scientist, and only leave the "truth tellers" huh?
See the problem is you keep quoting these references like it legitimizes or non politicizes what she writes. I can at least see that politics can be influencing this - you and your bias can't - yet you keep posting like its fact.
Originally Posted by
dr dre
Stop pretending it's a 50/50 "both sides are equal" argument. There are legitimate medical and scientific voices. And there are quacks.
The "argument from authority" logical fallacy is actually what the anti-vaxxers do. Take the opinions of a guy who diagnoses skin conditions and a economist over the overwhelming body of epidemiology and infectious disease expertise.
Why do you keep trying to conflate questions or contradictory evidence as "anti vaxx" and shut down conversation? It's intellectually lazy and a standard identity politics crap that's prolific these days. Do you genuinely believe people can't possibly hold a position that vaccines are a valid scientific process yet have concerns about a new one?