>>8662266>they test vaccine if they work and if they have side effects>i would call that criticismHe's got a point, though.
Everyone who has done their homework knows that vaccines kill people. Aside from bad vaccines or bad batches, some people just randomly have a bad reaction and die.
As for more subtle long-term problems, there isn't solid evidence for them, but nobody's been looking very hard either, and while it's easy to imagine various ways in which vaccination could cause problems, it would be very difficult to find and prove specific issues.
Vaccines also have a negative effect in that reliance on them enables people to continue behaviors that spread disease and keep us vulnerable to flash epidemics, such as hand-shaking, "presenteeism" (going into public while obviously sick), promiscuity, attending crowded events unprotected, frequent long-range travel with crowding and without quarantine, attacking people who want to raise the standard of hygiene as "germphobes", etc. This keeps us vulnerable to rapid spread of anything we're not vaccinated against, especially bioweapons, which are becoming easier to develop.
However, there's quite a strong push to suppress open debate of the fundamental merits of vaccination policy and dictate to the masses that they simply must get their shots, as the wise and worthy have decided they should.
>>8662452>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_EarthWhat, these guys?
>we are bringing the spirit of science back to a subject that has become too argumentative and too contentiousThe guys at the leftest-of-left-wing strongholds Berkeley, who said the problem with climate science was that it was "too argumentative and too contentious" and then came back and said, "Yeah, the mainstream warmists are totally legit. The problems other people have noticed don't matter. Stop criticizing them."?
Not exactly the strongest example to support a claim of robust, fair debate.
