What does the "science" say?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (63)
sorted by:
While your points are valid, so are the counter points: there is no evidence to suggest it's not true, either.
This is kinda vaguely stated. I'm not really sure what you mean, but I'll try to respond.
Exactly which counterpoints were true?
I stated that there was no evidence to support a stated fear. To the best of my knowledge, that is true, there is no evidence. It was touted as "The Standing Theory" but it would have been more accurate if he had said, "My unfounded fear." My protest was of advising someone against interacting with other people intimately because of a fear without any evidential foundation.
He stated that "people were sterilized by the shot". There is no evidence to support that statement. No evidence was provided in any counterpoints, so what "counterpoint" was true exactly?
He stated that "people have only 3 years to live" after the shot. There is no evidence to support that statement, so what "counterpoint" was true exactly?
I could say, "The Standing Theory is that a nuclear bomb is going to hit your house tomorrow. Because a nuclear bomb is going to hit your house tomorrow, you should be very afraid."
It MIGHT be true. There is no evidence that a nuclear bomb WON'T hit your house tomorrow. But its not a rational fear if there is no evidence.
My point is that you're both speculating. The "there is no evidence of" line is simply lazy. What is a rational fear is an entirely different question.
You are both looking at different "evidence" and coming to different conclusions.
I don't know what evidence that sleepydude is looking at, that's up to him to support his theory. But you didn't support yours either, you simply claimed that he had no evidence of that.
There was no evidence that thalidomide will hurt your baby, until there was.
There was no evidence that smoking was bad for you, until there was.
There was no evidence that the NSA was hoovering up everyone's data, until there was.
You see the point?
I have spent thousands of hours investigating it. I have spent hundreds of hours posting about the fraud in the "evidence" that is presented. I couldn't possibly be less lazy about this.
This is again, the opposite of the truth. I have looked at, and addressed ad nauseum, all evidence. I may not have here, but I have had this conversation many times on this board. There are numerous lies and disinformation in the "evidence" of infertility. I have pointed them out in exhausting detail. If anyone were to have brought up specific evidence in this conversation I would have pointed to my previous rebuttals (and substantial contrary evidence) of their evidence.
No evidence was provided to support the arguments, so I provided no evidential rebuttal. I can't address something that doesn't exist. But my post was not a discrediting of evidence, but a pointing out of fear mongering using an appeal to authority.
I do know, because I have addressed it on numerous occasions.
See above.
There has been substantial evidence for "infertility" and I have rebutted it substantially. If I have rebutted it (with substantial corroborating evidence and never a follow up rebuttal to show the flaws in my argument) then I can call out someone saying "Standing Theory" as promoting their argument above its appropriate place.
That is really all I did. I said, "you have a fear. It is unfounded in evidence." I NEVER said it wasn't true. I don't know what the truth is. I am myself on the lookout for evidence to support the idea that the vaccines cause infertility. I myself think it might be true. But I am NOT going to promote fears in others for it by raising it above what it is, which is pure speculation without evidence. If I have fears about it, I will say, "I have fears about it." I will say, "I am looking for evidence to support it. I have found nothing credible yet." I will say, "All the evidence I have found has shown itself to be mis or disinformation and in all ways not credible after the test of debate."
That is what I would say. I would not make an appeal to authority to promote it past a fear, because that is fear mongering. If I did, I would hope someone would call me out for doing that, because that helps no one and has the potential to be harmful in the decision making process of the individuals I am trying to influence with such authoritative and otherwise unsubstantiated appeals.
Well your response was lazy then, considering you claim to have so much knowledge on the subject.
That's just ridiculous.
Look guy, I'm just commenting on what I'm seeing in this thread. No idea you guys had a "thing"
Semantics
That's my point.