There are some differences between those topics though
1) Vaccines can have their validity proved through clinical trial and experimentation.
There is no question about the validity of or necessity for vaccines, what there is a question about is the safety of vaccines. Everyone seems to think that the benefits outweigh the risks and secondary to that the risks are lower than some other drugs. There are two problems with this. 1. The notion of there being 'acceptable' deaths kind of flies in the face of wanting to give every one vaccines to save lives. 2. There are no acceptable deaths when it comes to children. If the goal is to vaccinate every child on the planet then there darn well needs to be zero risk of death.
This is the prevailing attitude "Any discussion of the true risks of vaccination should be balanced by acknowledgment of the well-established benefits of vaccines in preventing disease, disability and deaths from infectious diseases." Try telling a parent whose child just died from a vaccine related incident ... 'well your child's death was just an unfortunate statistic and needs to be weighed against the well-established benefits of vaccination'.
3. While some risk is acceptable with other medications because no-one is suggesting that every person on earth is given those medications without the option of refusal (while one can theoretically refuse a vaccination, try getting a child into school, or travel without them). In addition when other medications are given doctors and pharmacists explain the risks, tell you what reactions to look out for, and there is a helpful pamphlet in the box which also tells you what the side-effects and risks are.
Although "Healthcare providers can take specific actions to help prevent adverse reactions, including proper screening for contraindications and precautions and observing a 15-minute waiting period after vaccinating to prevent fall-related injuries from syncope." there are several problems with this - a. no-one does it b. this does not help with any reactions after leaving the clinic c. does not inform the person / parent about any other complications that may arise. And the list of those complications is rather long.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046738.htm - much too long to list easily. Did you know ANY of these reactions were possible? Has anyone EVER told you that there were side-effects associated with vaccines, some affecting as many as 15% of people vaccinated? THIS is the issue. Vaccines are treated like this super-safe thing everyone just has done, and the medical profession does NOT conduct itself in the same manner as it does with other medications where there is a responsibility to inform.
Compare this list of side-effects from the NHS -
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/reporting-side-effects.aspx
With this list from the CDC:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm
See how downplayed the side-effects are? Makes it seem like nothing worse than a bit of pain, and a mild fever can result. And not only that, but you have to LOOK for that list. You are not routinely informed of even their downplayed list. The medical profession is putting children's lives at risk (admittedly a small risk but seriously if it is YOUR child at risk, you don't care how small the risk is, especially if your child becomes that statistic) and not acting with same level of care and responsibility it does with any other medication.
There are some differences between those topics though
1) Vaccines can have their validity proved through clinical trial and experimentation. Ditto for evolution. ...
2) Evolution and the arguments that usually criticise it end up being people who haven't bothered to understand it. This also goes for 99.99% of the criticisms I have seen people on the atheistic side of the argument make of the bible and religion. I doubt whether people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have actually tried to understand what religion tries to teach people.
I would truly love to see those clinic trials and experiments that PROVE evolution. FYI there aren't any. There are many that have tried, but none actually do. At best all they prove is adaptation. There is also no evidence in the fossil record - again evidence of adaption, but no evidence of evolution. There are no intermediary species. And there is absolute zero evidence of one species turning into another species. There is no evidence of evolutionary drive at work producing new species from the ocean, from ponds, from anywhere on earth currently. The answer is always 'oh but evolution takes places over such a long time scale it isn't evident' which is absolute rubbish. IF evolution is true, environmental pressure WILL produce new species constantly. At any given moment one should see a range of organisms at various stages of evolution, in a continuous process of ... well ... evolution .. with new species emerging, some species in a process of change, some stable populations, and some dying populations. But that is not what you see, what you do see is stable populations under threat from humans. And there is another problem with evolution - what the hell are we worried about if species die out - if evolution is true there are any number of new species just waiting for a niche to open up. We are actually helping diversity and the production of new species by putting nature under pressure. You can't have it both ways. There are holes you can drive a Mack truck through in the theory of evolution.
There are some differences between those topics though
Which leaves climate change. I have a couple of issues with the theory ranging from the actions of the people who support it to the ways to mitigate it. But the more "pure" argument I have is the following: people who support climate change and argue for its validity never provide a condition that would prove its invalidity. You take the current hurricane season at the moment, everyone is going blue in the face about how it is climate change that is causing it, but it isn't climate change when people get weather they want. If we have a spell of nice weather, climate change isn't to blame. This is logically incoherent for a theory that is meant to describe the climate, not just the parts of the climate we don't want.
So all I want is two things: a set of conditions in the near future that will prove the current theory to be correct and a set of conditions in the near future that will prove the current theory to be incorrect. That is putting your money where your mouth is.
I honestly don't care for all the hype about climate change. The fact is that the climate has undergone dramatic changes in the past, and will undoubtedly in the future. The question is really about pollution. We ARE polluting our environment to levels dangerous to our continued existence on this planet. And Mars exploration aside - we are stuck on this rock for the foreseeable future so it would behoove us to STFU about stupid rubbish and actually DO SOMETHING about cleaning up our own goddamn mess.
Sign up with Google
