100 bad arguments against vaccines

From time to time, I get directed to an article titled “One Hundred Arguments Against Vaccines” which was written by Natural Health Warriors and is nothing more than a Gish Gallop of anti-vaccine tropes. I have been loath to address this article because, quite frankly, I don’t really feel like spending several days debunking this nonsense. Nevertheless, given the frequency with which I encounter this article, I suppose it would be worthwhile to write a rebuttal. So here it is. Those of you who read this blog know that I like to pontificate, and I struggle with brevity, but given that I have 100 arguments to deal with, I will attempt to be terse. Many of these are arguments that I or others have dealt with in more detail elsewhere, so when relevant, I will link to those articles in case you want a more thorough refutation. Also, several of these arguments are nearly identical to each other, so I have grouped those and written a single response to all of them (note: all of the bad arguments are direct quotes from the Natural Health Warriors post [including the caps lock]).

using good sources charlie brown teacher anti-science movement hours of research homework peer-reviewed literatureAs you read through this, I want you to pay very careful attention to an important difference between the original article and my rebuttal. Namely, the “sources” for the original were almost entirely quack websites like Natural News, Whale.to, Info Wars, etc. Indeed, there were only citations to a few (I think three) peer-reviewed papers in the entire post, and most of them weren’t about vaccines. In contrast, I constantly back up my claims with peer-reviewed studies or statistics from reputable groups like the CDC and WHO. I may direct you to blogs for more detailed explanations, but I always back up factual claims with proper sources. On that note, if you disagree with my arguments, please do not bother to post unless you include references to the peer-reviewed literature. To be blunt, I do not give a crap about your anecdotes, gut feelings, opinions, or “hours of research.” Unless you can back up your position with properly conducted studies, your position is invalid.

Bad Argument #1). “NO vaccine is 100% safe.”
True…but neither is measles, polio, rubella, etc. Vaccines are a basic exercise in risk assessment. They have been tested over and over again, and their risks are extremely small. Conversely, the consequences of the diseases that they prevent are horrible. For example, Clemens et al. (1988) found that the introduction of the measles vaccine reduce death rates by 57%. In short, vaccines are far safer than the diseases that they prevent. For more details (and sources) see this post.

Bad Argument #2). “NO vaccine is 100% effective.”
I could say the same thing about seat belts, car seats, condoms, helmets, parachutes, sunscreen, etc. The fact that something isn’t 100% effective clearly doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t use it (i.e., this argument is logically inconsistent). Also, do you know what is 0% effective? Not vaccinating! (more details here).

Bad Argument #3). “ALL vaccines have severe life-threatening side-effects. Any ‘immunity’ gained from a vaccine is short term only.”
Again, life threatening side-effects from vaccines are extremely, extremely rare. For example, life threatening responses to the MMR vaccine occur in roughly 1 in 1,000,000 cases, and they are usually allergic reactions, which can be treated instantly since you are already at a medical facility. So deaths from vaccines are almost unheard of. In contrast, measles kills 1 out of every 1,000 people that it infects, resulting in thousands of deaths every year. Further, for some vaccines, immunity does last for a long time (Hammarlund et al. 2003; Jokinen et al. 2007), and even when it is short lived, vaccines are still better than having no protection at all. Further, in some cases natural immunity also isn’t life long (Wendelboe et al. 2005).

 Bad Argument #4). “There are no long term studies that have been done on the effects of vaccination.”
Define “long term”? Is “long term” 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? Without a clear definition of “long term” this criticism is vague to the point of uselessness. There have been several studies that have looked at vaccine safety effects over multiple years (Idbal et al. 2013; Ferris et al. 2014; Vincenzo et al. 2014), but “long-term” really needs to be defined beforehand. Also, realize that studies over several decades are inherently problematic because it becomes almost impossible to control all of the variables. Finally, the fact that there aren’t any studies over a 30 year period in no way shape or form justifies that conclusion that vaccines are dangerous (that would be an argument from ignorance fallacy).

Bad Argument #5). “Vaccine safety trials are only carried out on healthy babies, children and adults yet once approved, they are given to everyone – healthy or not.”
Actually, there are quite a few illnesses and disorders (such as being immunocompromised) that will prevent you from getting a vaccine (please see the CDC recommendations). Further, there are studies that look specifically at how people with various medical conditions respond to vaccines. For example, Kramarz et al. (2000) examined the effects of the flu vaccine on children with asthma.

Bad Argument #6). “Vaccine safety trials are paid for by the very people who make the vaccines, so there is no possibility of the information being unbiased or truthful.”
First, there are many safety trials that were not funded by vaccine manufactures (more details here). Second, let’s not forget that many of the people/sites that oppose vaccines make a lot of money from doing so (including sites that this article cites), so this argument is logically inconsistent (more details here and here). Finally, “no possibility,” really? The fact that someone works for a pharmaceutical company does not automatically mean that they are corrupt.

Bad Argument #7). “Unvaccinated children are much healthier than vaccinated children.”
This one links to a statistically invalid, self-reported survey.  Basically, they polled their audience of anti-vaxxers and asked them to rate their children’s health, and (big surprise) they said that children without vaccines were healthier. This survey is completely illegitimate. It lacks all of the proper controls and randomizations that would be necessary for it to be valid. It is no different than polling people as they exit Whole Foods and asking them to rate their health when they eat organic vs. non-organic food. Of course they are going to say that they feel better when eating organic, that’s why they are shopping there!  In contrast, a properly conducted, peer-reviewed study (Schmitz et al. 2011) compared the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated children, and the only difference was that unvaccinated children had vaccine preventable diseases significantly more often than vaccinated children. Further, Grabenhenrich et al. (2014) found that asthma rates are actually lower among the vaccinated. So in reality, vaccinated children are much healthier.

vaccines work US measles annual infection rates and death rates

US measles infection and mortality rates prior to and following the introduction of the measles vaccine. Notice that although death rates had decreased prior to vaccines, infection rates had not (sources are available at the end of this post).

Bad Argument #8). “Vaccination is NOT responsible for the decline in infectious diseases.”
No, actually it is. I dealt with this argument in detail here, but in short death rates had declined prior to vaccines, but actual infection rates had not. Further, numerous studies have found that disease rates declined sharply following the introduction of vaccines (Clemens et al. 1988; Adgebola et al. 2005; Richardson et al. 2010), and diseases have a nasty habit of returning when vaccine rates drop (Antona et al. 2013; Knol et al. 2013).

Bad Argument #9). “The polio vaccine of the 1950’s and 60’s was contaminated by the SV40 virus which is now confirmed to have caused cancer in many people who had received the vaccine. New viruses are being discovered all the time, so it’s a matter of Russian roulette on when such a virus will sneak into another vaccine.”
This argument boils down to, “the medical technologies of the 1950’s and 60’s were inadequate, therefore the medical technologies today are.” That is just silly. Standards and techniques have come a long way since then. This argument is like saying, “the first plane only flew a few feet, therefore modern transcontinental flights are dangerous.” Also, SV40 doesn’t cause cancer (you can find a lengthy explanation and sources here).

Bad Argument #10).“The cells of an aborted human fetus was used to make the rubella vaccine, which is part of the MMR vaccine.”
This is an appeal to emotion fallacy. Also, just to be clear, there are no aborted cells in the vaccines, and no new fetuses are being aborted for vaccines. The cells are simply used to culture the virus (details here).

Bad Argument #11). “Cow cells, monkey cells and chick embryo cells are all found in various vaccines – how can anyone really know the long term effects of injecting this foreign DNA into a 6 week old baby’s body?”
This is both an appeal to emotion fallacy and an argument from ignorance fallacy.  Also, none of those things are actually in the vaccines. Some vaccines contain cell proteins, but they do not contain the cells themselves (here’s a list of vaccine ingredients). More importantly, there is no reason to think that these cell proteins are dangerous, especially when thousands of studies all say that vaccines are safe. Also, realize that chemically, the DNA of all organisms is the same (it’s all deoxyribonucleic acid), and the foreign DNA isn’t going to get incorporated into your child’s genetic code (that only happens in comic books; more details here).

Bad Argument #12). “Add some heavy metals, antibiotics and preservatives and you have a toxic cocktail called a vaccine.”
This is yet another appeal to emotion fallacy (are you detecting a theme here?). Further, it ignores the fact that the dose makes the poison. The “toxic” chemicals in vaccines are present in extremely low doses, and they are perfectly safe at those concentrations (details here).

Bad Argument #13). “Oh, and don’t forget to add some GMO’s to the above as well!”
(sigh) Again, this is an appeal to emotion fallacy. Just because something sounds gross doesn’t mean that it is actually bad. You have to actually provide evidence that GMOs in vaccines are dangerous. Also, don’t forget that the life-saving drug known as insulin also comes from a GMO.

Bad Argument #14). “PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES CANNOT BE TRUSTED! They have proven over and over again that they are only in it for the money.”
This is a guilt by association fallacy (i.e., whether or not the companies are ethical has no bearing on whether or not vaccines work). Look, no one is saying that pharmaceutical companies are angelic, benevolent entities that are trying to bring about world peace and ensure that everyone has a unicorn for a pet. They are for profit companies which, by definition, means that their primary goal is money. I’m not contesting that. Also, like essentially all big companies, they will behave unethically for the sake of money, but accepting vaccines isn’t about trusting pharmaceutical companies, it’s about trusting science, and the scientific evidence says that vaccines are safe and effective. Also, please note that there are plenty of vaccine studies that aren’t affiliated with pharmaceutical companies, and vaccines aren’t actually worth that much to pharmaceutical companies (details here).

Bad Argument #15). “An Italian court has ruled that MMR was the cause of autism in this man’s case.”
Your point is…? Judges and lawyers aren’t science experts, and even if they were, the fact that they said that the vaccine caused the autism does not prove that the vaccine caused the autism. This is a blatant inappropriate appeal to authority fallacy.  Further, this ruling was later overturned. The “link” between autism and vaccines has been tested dozens of times. We have conducted a massive meta-analysis with over 1.2 million children (Taylor et al. 2014); we have looked specifically at children who are at a high risk of autism (Jain et al. 2015); we have even examined how vaccines affect the brains of rhesus macaques (Gadad et al. 2015), and we have always gotten the same result: vaccines do not cause autism. If you still think that vaccines cause autism, then you are willfully ignorant of reality (more details here).

Note: none of the three studies that I cited were funded by pharmaceutical companies, in fact, the monkey study was funded by anti-vaccers! Several of the authors of Jain et al. 2015 do work for the UnitedHealth Group and its subsidiaries, but they are not involved in the manufacturing of vaccines).

Bad Argument #16). “In New Zealand a fully vaccinated child in 1961 would have received 12 vaccines for four diseases (four jabs and three sips) up until the age of five. The current vaccine schedule includes 11 injections for 10 diseases by age four. This will continue to increase as the pharmaceutical companies realize they can make more money if they inject our children with more vaccines.”
First, let’s do some basic math. Twelve divide by 4 is 3, and 11 divided by 10 is 1.1. So in 1961, it took 3 vaccines per disease, whereas now it takes 1.1 vaccines per disease (assuming that their numbers are even true, I didn’t check). In other words, the number of vaccines per disease is decreasing. If this was truly all about the money, we would expect the exact opposite, there should be more injections per vaccine, not fewer. Further, the reason that there are more injections today is because today children are protected against more diseases, which is a good thing! This argument is no different from complaining that cars today have more airbags than they did in the 60s!

Bad Argument #17). “Herd immunity by means of vaccination is a LIE the pharmaceutical companies use to make parents feel bad for not vaccinating their children.”
No it’s not., It is an empirical fact which can easily be calculated and simulated (see herehere, and here), and has been experimentally demonstrated numerous times (Monto et al. 1970; Rudenko et al. 1993; Hurwitz et al. 2000; Reichert et al. 2001; Ramsay et al. 2003).

Bad Argument #18).”Vaccines are regularly being withdrawn from the market due to adverse reactions.”
To check the facts on this, I went straight to the FDA website and looked at the vaccine recalls over the past 5 years. There have only been nine, and all of them were for particular batches, not the entire vaccine. In fact, none of them were because the vaccine itself had been found to be dangerous. One was simply that there was an error on the insert package, another was that some vials were cracked, and a third was that the batch had been shipped to the wrong country. Most of the recalls were because the company had preemptively recalled the batch because that particular batch tested below their standards (no adverse effects had been document). In fact, only two of the recalls directly mentioned potential adverse health effects, and both of those were because of problems with the vials, not because of problems with the vaccines themselves. So, rather than showing that vaccines are dangerous, these recalls show an incredibly high level of quality control.  Finally, let’s not forget that any product that is made on such an enormous scale is occasionally going to have defects, but the defects are extraordinarily rare compared to the volume that is being produced.

Bad Argument #19). “In New Zealand, 65% of people who contracted whooping cough in 2012 were vaccinated.”
Bad Argument #20). “Most children who catch measles were already vaccinated.”
Anti-vaccers apparently suck at math. It is true, that in raw numbers the majority of infected people were vaccinated, but that is because the majority of the population was vaccinated. So, when you look at the actual percentages (i.e., infection rates), you find that the unvaccinated have far higher disease rates than the vaccinated (I explained the math in more detail here).

Bad Argument #21). “Even ex-vaccine developers are coming out and exposing the lies that the vaccination industry is based on.”
This links to an “interview” with someone who claims to be an ex-vaccine developer (pseudonym: Dr. Mark Randall), but the interview contains all the usual anti-vaccine tropes, as well as clearly unfactual statements, and numerous conspiracy theories (such as the WHO being involved in depopulation efforts). Finally, realize we are given no actual information about this person. We don’t know who he is, where he worked, what his credentials are, or if he actually even exists. We are just supposed to take the interviewer’s word for everything, but the interviewer is not a credible, well-respected journalist, he (Jon Rappaport) is a conspiracy theorist who also writes posts about mind control, HIV conspiracies, etc. In other words, there is absolutely no reason to trust anything in this “interview.” Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and this just doesn’t cut it.

Bad Argument #22). “The swine flu vaccine caused an increase of narcolepsy cases in children recently.”
For once, the claim is actually true, but it’s not nearly as bad as it sounds. First, this was a regional phenomena (not a global one) and appears to be an interaction between the vaccine and an underlying genetic issue. Second, I reiterate that vaccines do admittedly  have side effects (as do all real medical treatments), but they are very rare (see #1). In this case, the three estimated rates of vaccine induced narcolepsy were 1 in 12,000, 3 in 100,000 and 1 in 100,000, all three of which are extremely low.

Bad Argument #23). “At least one death in NZ has been linked to the Gardasil vaccine.”
Bad Argument #24). “…and four more deaths from Gardasil in India.”
This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Just because A happened before B does not mean that A caused B, so the fact that someone died after taking the vaccine does not prove that the vaccine killed them. For the NZ case, this person received the vaccine and died several months later, resulting in the mother being convinced that it was the vaccine, but there is absolutely no way to prove that. In fact, the very article that this post cited contains several other completely plausible explanations for the death.

The article that was cited for the India deaths was more vague, making it hard to refute directly, but I did find this report of seven deaths following Gardasil in India (I presume that the four deaths being discussed are included in those seven), and, importantly, none of those deaths appear to be related to the vaccine. “One girl drowned in a quarry; another died from a snake bite; two committed suicide by ingesting pesticides; and one died from complications of malaria.” So unless you think that the vaccine caused a snake bite, that leaves just two deaths, and the Indian Council of Medical Research concluded that neither of them were caused by the vaccine.

Bad Argument #25). “Homeless people died after being paid £1-2 to participate in a vaccine trial.”
This claim included a link to an article in the Telegraph, and I have been able to find very little information beyond what is in that article. From what I have found, it does appear that there may have been some unethical practices by certain people involved, but that does not prove that all of the scientists/doctors involved in vaccine testing are unethical (that would be a hasty generalization fallacy/guilt by association fallacy). Further, the guilty parties were caught and dealt with, and the study was stopped. Also, it is not clear that the people who died actually died as a result of the vaccine (they may have died for completely different reasons). Finally, this was an experimental trial of a new vaccine, so it doesn’t provide evidence that the vaccines that passed their safety trials are dangerous.

Bad Argument #26). “Since the 1980’s, vaccine manufacturers in the USA have been protected from lawsuits following vaccine injury.”
First, what’s your point? What exactly do you think this proves? Second, you cannot sue them directly, but you can get money through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), which is essentially a no fault system that does not require proof that the vaccine was responsible. In other words, you can get money for essentially any potentially plausible claim of vaccine injury even if the vaccine was in no way at fault (more details about the NVICP here).

Bad Argument #27). “Vaccination is being used to REDUCE fertility and reduce the worldwide population.”
The logic of this one is so bad it makes my soul cry. Here’s the deal: various vaccine manufacturers have experimented with birth control vaccines (i.e., a vaccine which is designed solely to prevent pregnancy), just as they have experimented with pills, IUDs, and other forms of contraceptives. This does not mean that the vaccines that you receive reduce fertility, nor does it mean that companies are trying to reduce the world’s population. This argument is no different from saying, “the same company makes birth control pills and aspirin, therefore aspirin reduces fertility and is a secret plot to depopulate the planet” (here is their “source“).

Bad Argument #28). “The pro-vaccine movement openly admits that it is willing to sacrifice some lives in order to ‘save’ many. I’m not willing to risk that my child is that one that will get sacrificed due to vaccine damage.”
First, the risk to your child is extremely minimal. No one is asking your kid to be a tribute for District 12. Second, if everyone was as selfish as you, then disease rates would skyrocket and the risk to your child would be much higher than it currently is. Further, let’s not forget that your child is much safer with a vaccine than without it. So this argument is both selfish and ignorant (see Gangarosa et al. 1998; Hahne et al. 2009; Antona et al. 2013; Knol et al. 2013 for the consequences of this type of selfishness, and see this post for why anti-vaccers are actually at fault for outbreaks).

Epic win kid meme vaccines I was fully vaccinated millions of people perfectly fine

If we are going to use anecdotes, I have a few million of them for you. Image created by Melissa Miller.

Bad Argument #29). “Ian’s story.”
Bad Argument #30). “Stephanie’s story.”

Personal anecdotes are completely and totally meaningless. Again, the fact that someone died months, weeks, or even days after a vaccination does not prove that the vaccine was the cause (i.e., these are post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies). Further, if we are going to allow personal anecdotes, then I can easily counter stories like these with the stories of me, my three siblings, my wife, my wife’s brother, all nine of my cousins, and all of my friends, none of whom have had serious reactions to vaccines. We have to rely on carefully controlled studies, not anecdotes (details here).

Bad Argument #31). “And I couldn’t resist throwing in some celebrities who do not vaccinate their kids or at least question the effectiveness and safety of vaccines: Mayim Bialik (Amy Farah-Fowler from Big Bang Theory)”
Bad Argument #32). “Jenny McCarthy.”
Bad Argument #33). “Jim Carrey.”
Bad Argument #34). “Rob Schneider.”
Bad Argument #35). “Donald Trump.”
Bad Argument #36). “The legendary Chuck Norris.”
Bad Argument #37). “Even Dr Oz’s wife doesn’t allow him to vaccinate their kids.”
“This anti-vaxx movement has a lot of things that I love: star power, science denial, and hipster appeal. Cause Penny-farthings and handlebar moustaches are cool, but nothing is more vintage than dying of Rubella.”Stephen Colbert vaccine memeThese seven “arguments” are among the most absurd so far. The author of this article didn’t just cite a celebrity as an expert, they actually blatantly argued that you shouldn’t vaccinate because these celebrates say not to (remember the title of this article is “100 Arguments Against Vaccines”)! This is possibly the most flagrant inappropriate appeal to authority fallacy that I have ever seen (and believe me, I’ve seen a lot of appeals to authority). Who gives a crap what a bunch of celebrates think? The fact that they are famous doesn’t mean that we should we listen to their uneducated opinions. Finally, if we are going to play the celebrity card, I’m going to go with what Stephen Colbert had to say (to be clear, I’m not actually saying you should accept vaccines because Colbert does, it’s just a good quote, and it once again demonstrates that anti-vaxxers use inconsistent logic).

Bad Argument #38). “The medical profession still has no clue how the immune system really works, let alone understand the fragile immune system of a 6-week old baby! Do you really think it’s a wise idea to inject foreign DNA, heavy metals, antibiotics, GMO’s, preservatives, etc. into something if you don’t know how it works.”
That’s odd, because I could have sworn that when I took immunology a few years ago, I had to memorize exactly how the immune system works. In fact, I still have the sizable textbook from that course and it explains the immune system in excruciating detail. Not to mention the fact that literally hundreds of thousands of papers have been published about the immune system. So this claim makes no sense whatsoever. Also, it concludes with an appeal to emotion fallacy (see #10-13).

Bad Argument #39). “Vaccines are NOT ‘free,’ like the Ministry of Health, Pharmaceutical companies, doctors, etc. would have us believe. They cost the NZ tax payer millions! Oh, and we also have to pay for the damage they cause.”
The way that vaccines are paid for varies greatly from one country to the next, so whether or not this argument applies depends on the country that we are dealing with, but let’s say that it is universally true. The argument then becomes, “vaccines are bad because they cost money.” Really? We shouldn’t use something just because it costs money? Did you pay for the computer/phone that you are reading this on? Does that make it bad?

Bad Argument #40). “Pharmaceutical companies cannot be trusted! A video interview with Dr Russell Blaylock on fraudulent vaccine science and ethics – a must watch.”
Bad Argument #41). “Oh and if you need some more evidence of the untrustworthiness of pharmaceutical companies, read the book entitled ‘Diary of a Legal Drug Dealer.'”
These are just repeats of #14 so please see it. Also, Blaylock is hardly a reliable source.

Bad Argument #42). “Vaccination bypasses all the body’s natural defense systems – it’s a totally unnatural process – something we were not designed to have to deal with.”
Apparently the author doesn’t understand how vaccines work because this argument is blatantly untrue. During a “natural” infection, your immune system detects the infectious agent and instructs your body to make cells which can produce antibodies that are specific for that infectious agent. After a vaccination, your immune system detects the infectious agent in the vaccine and instructs your body to make cells which produce antibodies that are specific for that infectious agent. There is only one important difference: in the vaccine, the infectious agent has been modified or killed so that it cannot cause a full blown infection, but the way that your body responds is essentially identical. Also, note that this argument is a blatant appeal to nature fallacy. Even if the claims were true, the fact that something is unnatural does not automatically mean that it is bad.

Bad Argument #43). “Antibiotics are blamed for creating superbugs, yet they are routinely added to vaccines!”
Antibiotics themselves are wonderful. They have saved countless millions of lives. The problem is their overuse. People use them for everything, even when they aren’t really necessary. It is this overuse which causes superbugs to evolve. The superbugs are not going to spontaneously form inside the vaccine. Finally realize that the antibiotics are in there to prevent bacterial contamination. In other words, they are necessary for vaccines to be safe, and if they weren’t there, then vaccines actually would be dangerous.

 Bad Argument #44). “Big Pharma keeps on increasing the amount of recommended ‘boosters’ as it’s just such a fabulous way for them to make more money without having to do any extra work.”
Actually, they are recommending boosters because the scientific evidence says that for some diseases, immunity (including natural immunity) wears off over time (Wendelboe et al. 2005). This argument is what we call a question begging fallacy. I would not accept the premise that boosters were all about money unless I had already accepted the conclusion that vaccines were bad (more details and sources on boosters and the longevity of immunity here).

Bad Argument #45). “There is no consideration for a child’s mass when they are given a vaccine – a 6 week old baby is given the same dose as a 5 year old.”
That is because vaccines have been designed to be safe the age at which they are recommended, which means that they are also safe for larger children. In other words, a dose that is designed to be safe for a 6 week old will also be safe for a 5 year old, so there is no reason to adjust the dose.

no matter what crackpot notion you believeBad Argument #46). “Even immunologists admit that vaccines compromise our natural immunity.”
The link for this one was broken, so I don’t know which particular immunologists it was referring to, but regardless, it’s an appeal to authority fallacy. The fact that you found a few immunologists who agree with you doesn’t make you right. Also, there is scientific evidence that artificial immunity is much better than natural immunity (see #47).

Bad Argument #47). “Childhood illnesses actually help to strengthen a child’s immune system.”
They only “strengthen” the immune system in that they prevent you from getting the disease a second time. In other words, this argument boils down to, “you should get measles so that you don’t get measles” (I explained the absurdity of this in more detail here). Further, a recent study (Mina et al. 2015) found that getting a measles infection actually suppresses the immune system for 2-3 years! In other words, it weakens the immune system for up to three years after the initial infection, and during that time you are more likely to get other diseases (more details here).

Bad Argument #48). “The short term immunity that is sometimes gained from vaccination in childhood only means it is much harder for the body to deal with when that immunity has waned and you get the illness as an adult.”
I’m not sure exactly what the author is arguing here, but my guess is that they are arguing that childhood diseases are often worse if you get them as an adult, so it is better to get them as a child. If that is the case, there are several things to note. First, there are these simple, safe, and cheap things called boosters that maintain your immunity even into adulthood. Second, “natural” immunity often isn’t life long as well (details here). Finally, when most people are vaccinated, and herd immunity is high, your chance of getting an infectious disease as an adult is generally extremely low, whereas if you get the disease as a child, your chance of getting a serious complication from it is often very high. For example, for measles infections, 1 in 1,000 will die, 1 in 1,000 will get encephalitis, 1 in 20 will get pneumonia (often requiring hospitalization), and 1 in 20 will get an ear infection (sometimes resulting in permanent deafness).

Bad Argument #49). “http://www.ias.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/ias-brochure-2011.pdf.#sthash.t7LszLZf.dpuf”
This argument was simply a link, and the link is broken.

Bad Argument #50A). “Vaccines are commonly believed to work by producing antibodies. However, a number of researchers have found that the presence of antibodies only indicates that the immune system has come into contact with an antigen. What this means is that we are told of vaccines producing antibodies, which in turn will protect us against disease, is a lie! The presence of antibodies does NOT equal immunity!”
This lengthy ramble makes no sense whatsoever, and it represents a clear lack of understanding about how the immune system works. An antigen is a surface recognition protein that is present on the outer membrane of cells (or bacteria walls). Each type of cell has a specific antigen that your body can recognize (this is how your immune system tells the difference between your cells and a foreign cell). So, when you get an infection, your body learns to identify the antigens of the invading cells, and it produces antibodies for those cells. What vaccines do, is present your body with the antigens without actually giving you the infection. That way your body produces the necessary antibodies without you actually getting sick. So, the mechanism that your immune system uses is identical between vaccines and natural immunity. They both produce antibodies in response to antigens (see $42).

Bad Argument #50B). “We know what the signs and symptoms of the so called “vaccine preventable” diseases (e.g. measles, influenza, pertussis etc.) are. We know the best the treatments (natural or pharmaceutical) for each. However, once vaccinated, possible side effects from the vaccinations (all noted in the insert leaflets) are many and various, and may or may not be successfully dealt with.”
First, this argument ignores that fact that despite our medical knowledge, these diseases often have serious consequences, including death (see #48). Second, we know what the side effects of vaccines are, and serious side effects are extremely rare. For example, for the MMR vaccine, the most common serious side effect is an allergic response, but it only occurs in about 1 in every 1,000,000 cases. Further, it’s going to occur right after the injection, which means that it will happen at a medical facility where treatment is readily available. Finally, the vaccine inserts list every condition that has ever been reported following a vaccine, but that does not mean that the vaccine caused those conditions (that’s a post hoc ergo proter hoc fallacy). You can find a more detailed explanation of the vaccine inserts here.

Bad Argument #51). “This ’60 Minutes’ program was on in July 2011 and looks at two New Zealand children who were brain damaged by the whooping cough vaccine and another who was killed by the Gardasil vaccine. During June 2005 and June 2011, ACC paid out on 449 claims of vaccine damage.”
First, remember again that the fact that an injury follows a vaccine doesn’t automatically mean that the vaccine caused it (this is yet another post hoc ergo proter hoc fallacy). Second, let’s assume that the vaccine was actually responsible. If that’s the case, the vaccine is still the safer option. Vaccines have side effects, no one has ever denied that, but they are safer than the alternative, and two cases of brain damage aren’t nearly as troubling as the numerous deaths that occur without the vaccine. Whooping cough still kills thousands of people annually. In 2008 alone, it killed 195,000 children, and during that same year, the vaccine was estimated to have saved  687,000 lives. So please, stop trying to scare me with your cherry-picked examples. Finally, regarding the claims of vaccine damage, it’s a no fault system and does not constitute evidence that the vaccine actually caused the problem (see #26).

Bad Argument #52). “The Hippocratic Oath states that physicians swear to do no harm – yet vaccines routinely destroy the lives of people right around the world.”
No they freaking don’t! They do, however, dramatically reduce disease and death rates (Clemens et al. 1988; Adgebola et al. 2005; Richardson et al. 2010).

Bad Argument #53). “The polio vaccine actually causes vaccine induced polio paralysis.”
The link for this one goes to a Natural News article, not a legitimate source, and it claims that vaccines are causing non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFV). This claim is not supported by scientific evidence. It is true that the rates of NPAFV have increased in some areas, but they are caused by various bacteria and viruses, not vaccines (Laxmivandana et al. 2013). Also, to be fair, in extraordinarily rare cases in populations with very low vaccination rates, the virus in the vaccine can mutate to a form that causes polio and can cause paralysis (details here). There have, however, only been a total of 758 cases of this despite millions of vaccinations. Further, let’s not forget that the vaccine has completely eliminated polio from many countries. So overall, the paralysis rates are much, much lower with the vaccine than without it.

Bad Argument #54). “Vaccines accomplishing world depopulation.”
Oh for goodness sake. This claim links to a video where Bill Gates is talking about slowing the human population growth rate and says that vaccines are very useful in accomplishing that; however, slowing the growth rate and depopulating are two entirely different things. As countries get access to technology and proper medical care, people start having fewer children because they don’t need to have as many, since most of them actually survive into adult hood. Vaccines slow the growth rate because when all your children survive, you only need to have one or two; whereas when most of them die in infancy, you need to have a lot. This is a well established fact: in developed countries, people choose to have fewer children. That is completely and totally different from vaccines causing sterility, deaths, etc. Only in the mind of a paranoid conspiracy theorist could Gates’ comment ever be twisted into something sinister.

Bad Argument #55). “GlaxoSmithKline were responsible for the death of 14 babies during illegal vaccine experiments.”
This is a gross misrepresentation. First, the experiment itself was not illegal, but it appears that proper consent was not obtained for all subjects. Importantly, however, the 14 deaths were not associated with the vaccine being tested, because those 14 children were given the placebo! The very article that the author(s) cited says this. So the claim that GlacoSmithKline was responsible for these deaths is an outright lie.

Bad Argument #56). “Even though mercury has been linked to numerous illnesses, it is still routinely used in vaccines.”
First, the mercury in vaccines is ethyl mercury, whereas the toxic mercury is methyl mercury. They are completely different. Further, ever since 2001, ethyl mercury has only been included in some forms of the flu vaccine. Also, the dose makes the poison, and the amount in vaccines is tiny (more details here and here).

Bad Argument #57). “Fully vaccinated doctors get whooping cough – so what’s the point in getting vaccinated.”
Just because something isn’t 100% effective doesn’t mean that it isn’t worth using (see #2). This argument is like saying, “even the people who design air bags have fatal car accidents, so what’s the point of having airbags?”

Bad Argument #58). “Vaccine ingredients can lead to a severe form of kidney disease.”
The dose makes the poison, and the dose in vaccines is tiny. The fact that an ingredient can be harmful in a high dose does not mean that it is harmful in a low dose.

Bad Argument #59). “The whole policy of vaccination is based on money, not on health, safety or anything else that might benefit the human race.”
Actually, pharmaceutical companies make very little from vaccines (details here), and there are many independent scientists and doctors involved (more details here). Further, even if money was the sole goal, that wouldn’t constitute evidence that vaccines aren’t safe and effective. If we were to apply this line of reasoning consistently, then since the whole point of Toyota is to make money, Toyotas must be dangerous.

Bad Argument #60). “Vaccines are the cause for many of the chronic diseases we see these days.”
No they aren’t. Their safety has been rigorously tested over and over again. You cannot make this claim unless you can back it up with properly controlled studies with large sample sizes that were published in reputable peer-reviewed journals. The anecdotes in the link that the author(s) cite just doesn’t cut it.

Bad Argument #61). “Vaccines are used to commit genocide among First Nations people in Canada.”
The “source” for this claim is a “Wholistic Nutrition Counsellor” who was unhappy that Xyolhemeylh Health and Family Services supported vaccines rather than her definition of healthy living, which is, “learning about the connection between body, mind and spirit and allowing the body to heal itself using whole foods, organics, natural medicines.” In other words, she was disgruntled about being asked to recommend science instead of woo. She provides absolutely zero evidence of genocide. The closest that she comes is saying, “I had observed a high incedence [sic] of deaths within the Sto:Lo communities linked to suicides, diabetes, cancer, heart disease,” but I seriously doubt that vaccines cause suicides. So, instead of providing actual evidence of genocide, she simply states that vaccines were being pushed, then gives the usual nonsense arguments about “dangerous toxins” and side effects. In other words, this argument is a question begging fallacy. I wouldn’t believe that the vaccines were being used for genocide unless I was already convinced that the vaccines were dangerous. Finally, one of her cornerstone arguments is that she was instructed not to talk to families about the risks of vaccines. She presents this as evidence of a conspiracy,  but that request actually seems completely reasonable given that she would almost certainly have given the families misinformation about “toxins” and encouraged people to rely on diet and exercise rather than vaccines.

Bad Argument #62). “Vaccination is not compulsory in New Zealand or the United States – we have the right to refuse to undergo medical treatment.”
I also have the right to eat nothing but lard until I become Jabba the Hutt, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea. The simple fact that you have the right to do something is not a valid argument for actually doing that thing.

Bad Argument #63). “If you’re religious, then there are plenty of reasons to not vaccinate.”
It would take an entire post to explain the many problems in the various religious arguments, so I will just summarize by saying that if your religion actually says that you should let your children suffer and die rather than using a simple preventative measure, then there is something seriously wrong with your religion. Also, relying on God to protect your child seems rather foolish given the thousands of deaths that occurred prior to vaccines (why didn’t God save those children?).

Bad Argument #64). “More information is becoming available regarding the link to vaccines and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).”
As usual, the link for this claim goes to an anti-vaccine page rather than a legitimate source, and the anti-vaccine page contains various anecdotes, post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies, correlation fallacies, and shoddy preliminary studies. In contrast, multiple peer-reviewed studies have found that not only do vaccines not increase the risk of SIDS, but is some cases, they may actually lower the risk (Hoffman et al. 1987; Griffin et al. 1988; Mitchell et al. 1995; Fleming et al. 2001; Vennemann et al. 2007a; Vennemann et al. 2007b).

Bad Argument #65). “Most doctors have no idea what ingredients are found in vaccines. If you don’t believe me, ask your doctor at your next visit! Why would you allow your doctor to inject you with something when they do not even know its ingredients?”
Most mechanics don’t know the chemical ingredients in engine oil, so why would you allow them to fill your engine with something when they don’t even know its ingredients? Hopefully you see my point. You don’t have to know every single ingredient to know that something is safe and effective (again, anti-vaccers suck at consistent reasoning). I don’t care if my doctors know the chemical makeup of a vaccine or pharmaceutical, just so long as they know the literature and know the risks and benefits associated with a vaccine/treatment (which they do, btw).

Bad Argument #66). “Only about 1% of serious events are reported to the FDA. That means that 99% of adverse vaccine reactions are not reported.”
First, realize that the 1% number was cherry-picked, and both the opinion paper that the author cited (Kessler 1993)  and the study that generated the 1% number (Scott et al. 1987) are rather old and almost certainly don’t reflect the current values. Indeed, a slightly more recent systematic review found that on average 20% of serious events were reported (Hazell and Shakir 2006). Further, those values are for adverse reactions to any drug. You cannot apply a broad generality to something as specific vaccines. Indeed, it seems that the reporting rates for vaccines are much higher (Hazell and Shakir 2006). In fact, vaccine injuries are often over-reported, because many of the cases that get reported to the VAERS are false associations (i.e., an injury followed the vaccine, but the vaccine didn’t actually cause it; see #26).

Bad Argument #67). “The pertussis (whooping cough) bacteria are adapting to the vaccine and mutating, much like antibiotic resistant superbugs, becoming more pronounced.”
First, there is very little scientific evidence to support this argument (Cherry 2012), and the scientific studies that anti-vaccers cite to bolster this claim are always terribly misconstrued. Nevertheless, for sake of argument, let’s assume that pertussis is evolving to “resit” the vaccine. If that were true, the solution would simply be to modify the vaccine. This situation is totally different from antibiotics. You see, antibiotics actually kill bacteria, and the bacteria evolve so that the antibiotics no longer kill them. In contrast, vaccines don’t kill bacteria, viruses, etc. Rather, they teach the immune system how to recognize them. So the only way to mutate such that a vaccine no longer works, would be to mutate a different antigen (surface recognition protein). In other words, if the vaccine teaches the immune system to look out for antigen X, but a bacteria has mutated so that it now has antigen X’, the vaccine will no longer work. Fixing this is, however, extremely simple: just modify the vaccine so that it contains both antigen X and X’.

Bad Argument #68). “30 Years of secret official transcripts show UK Government experts cover up vaccine hazards to sell more vaccines and harm your kids.”
This claim is based on the following report, which claims to have documented 30 years of admittedly disturbing corruption among UK officials. Wading through all of the documents that the report cites would take me days, so instead, let’s just assume that the original report is correct. Even if it is, the claims made by the anti-vaccers are outrageous and unmerited. I see anti-vaccers all over the internet claiming that this report proves that the officials knew that vaccines were dangerous, knew that they didn’t work, tried to stop safety studies, etc. Similarly, the Natural Health Warrior article claims that the officials were trying to “harm your kids.” The reality is that the report simply claimed that officials tried to downplay the side effects of vaccines and prevent parents from knowing about them. There is nothing in the report to indicate that they knew that vaccines didn’t work, were trying to harm children, etc. In fact, the opposite is true. The report says, ”

“Here I present the documentation which appears to show that the JCVI made continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates which they deemed were necessary for ‘herd immunity.'”

In other words, the officials were withholding information because they knew that vaccines worked and wanted to make sure that the vaccination rate was high enough to protect everyone. To be clear, people do have the right to know about the side effects of vaccines (even if they are rare and minor, see #1 and 3), but the evidence in the report in no way shape or form justifies that claims being made by anti-vaccers, and it most certainly doesn’t demonstrate or even suggest that vaccines are ineffective or dangerous.

Bad Argument #69). “If you need any further evidence regarding the numerous errors that occur during vaccine manufacturing, storing, administering, etc. then here is a great resource.”
The link for this specific “resource” is broken, but it was something from vaccinetruth.org, which is one of the most counterfactual websites in existence. There is nothing on that website that constitutes a “great resource.” Please see #18 for information on how absurdly tightly regulated the manufacturing process actually is.

Bad Argument #70). “The head of the Center for Disease Control – Julie Gerberding – admits in this interview that vaccines can cause autism-like symptoms. Same difference!”
First, that’s not exactly true. She admitted that vaccines can cause fevers (which we already knew), and in certain cases where a person has other conditions that are already stressing the body (specifically rare mitochondrial disorders), that fever can trigger changes that result in autism-like symptoms. That is extremely different from a broad generalization that “vaccines can cause autism-like symptoms.” Further, the specific case in question is that of Hannah Poling, and it is not at all clear that vaccines were at fault (Doja 2008; Offit 2008; see #15 for more on vaccines and autism).

Second, autism and autism-like symptoms are not in anyway the same thing. Rhinovirus (one of the causes of the common cold) produce hay fever-like symptoms, but that does not mean that Rhinoviruses cause hay fever. This argument commits a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent.

Note: the “source” for this claim is a Natural News video (“CDC Chief Admits That Vaccines Cause Autism”) that chopped and misrepresented an interview with Gerberding. The key statement occurs at 2:50.

organic food autism corrleation logical fallacy

Correlation does not equal causation. Organic food sales and autism rates are tightly correlated, but that does not mean that organic food causes autism. Image via the Genetic Literacy Project

Bad Argument #71). “Vaccines are the cause for the alarming rise in peanut allergies around the world. When I was a child, I didn’t know a single kid with a peanut allergy in our entire school. These days, peanut-containing products are banned from most school grounds to prevent deadly anaphylactic shock in those who are allergic to peanuts.”
There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that vaccines or their ingredients cause peanut allergies. The fact that vaccines have increased along with the increase in peanut allergies does not mean that vaccines cause peanut allergies. This is a correlation fallacy.

Bad Argument #72). “Yeast is a common ingredient in vaccine manufacturing and has been linked to the rise and cause of asthma in many young children.”
Asthma rates are actually lower among vaccinated children than unvaccinated children (Grabenhenrich et al. 2014).

Bad Argument #73). “Vaccines cause allergies because they clog our lymphatic system and lymph nodes with large protein molecules which have not been adequately broken down by our digestive processes, since vaccines by pass digestion with injections.”
Essentially nothing about this claim is true. Vaccines don’t “clog” our lymphatic system (remember, proteins are microscopic), and although some people are naturally allergic to the ingredients in vaccines, there is no evidence that vaccines cause allergies.

Bad Argument #74). “There was a 4,250% increase in fetal deaths reported to VAERS after the flu vaccine was given to pregnant women.”
First, remember that VAERS is completely self reported and the fact that someone reported a fetal death following a vaccine does not mean that the vaccine was responsible (more details here). Therefore, this argument is totally invalid. Second, and more importantly, numerous peer-reviewed studies have examined the effects of flu vaccines on fetal moralities and, guess what, they have all found that flu vaccines do not increase the risk of fetal deaths (Mak et al. 2008; Pasternak et al. 2012a; Fell et al. 2012; Haberg et al. 2013). Similarly, studies have also failed to find increased risks to infants whose mothers were vaccinated during pregnancy (Fell et al. 2012; Pasternak et al. 2012b). You can also find a refutation of the study that produced the 4,250% figure here.

Bad Argument #75). “AIDS was transmitted to the human race via the monkey cells used to make vaccines. I challenge you to listen to this interview with Merck vaccine scientist Dr Maurice Hilleman who admits “I didn’t know we were importing the AIDS virus at the time.”
The claim that the polio vaccine spread AIDs has been thoroughly refuted by scientific tests (Sharp, et al. 2001), including directly testing the vaccine for the presence of HIV (Berry, et al. 2001; Blancou, et al. 2001) and looking at the phylogenetics of the virus and its wild hosts (Rambaut, et al. 2001; Worobey, et al. 2004).  You can find more complete summaries of the science here and by Weiss (2001). You can also find an explanation of the actual interview at Respectful Insolence.

Bad Argument #76). “Disease outbreaks still occur in fully and highly vaccinated communities.”
True, but they are often triggered by an unvaccinated person, they are usually easily contained, and they are less common than outbreaks in communities with low vaccine levels. Ultimately, this argument is a sharpshooter fallacy because it ignores the fact that overall, disease rates are much lower among the vaccinated (important sources in #8 and more details here).

Bad Argument #77). “Newly vaccinated individuals are responsible for the spread of disease via ‘shedding’ from live virus vaccines.”
It is important realize that they are “shedding” the inactivated virus that is used in the vaccine. In other words, you cannot get the full disease itself from the shed virus. All you can get is the modified version of the virus that is used in the vaccine. So for most people, this is not a problem, but it can be a problem for people who are immunocompromised, which is why they are encouraged to avoid the feces of those who have been recently vaccinated (which they probably should be doing anyway). To quote the very study that the Natural Health Warriors post cited (Anderson 2008), “Since the risk of vaccine transmission and subsequent vaccine-derived disease with the current vaccines is much less than the risk of wildtype rotavirus disease in immunocompromised contacts, vaccination should be encouraged” (my emphasis).

Bad Argument #78). “Pro-vaccination enthusiasts like to point to pharmaceutical industry sponsored research for evidence that vaccines work. In this interesting article by John Ioannidis, he writes why most published research findings are false.”
This argument is a gross misrepresentation of Ioannidis’s informative work. The main problem that Ioannidis was dealing with was the fact that statistics inevitably produce some false positives, and there is a strong publication bias towards positive results. Thus, many initial studies get published because they got a positive result, but they are later refuted when other studies can’t replicate the results. In other words, this is a problem that mostly arises when there is only one or two papers on a topic. It does not apply to situations like vaccines where you have literally thousands of papers that all agree with each other. Where it does apply, however, is the occasional peer-reviewed anti-vaccine paper that disagrees with all of the other vaccine research. The take home message from Ioannidis is not that we shouldn’t trust science, but that we should critically evaluate papers and look at the literature as a whole rather than focusing on a single study (more details here and here). Finally, many of the studies on vaccines were not sponsored by pharmaceutical companies (details here).

Bad Argument #79). “Those who promote vaccines also happen to be the ones who benefit from it financially”
That is often untrue (details here). Also, let’s not forget that many of the people who oppose vaccines benefit from doing so. For example, Natural News (which the Natural Health Warriors post cites religiously) has a store where they sell you their alternatives to vaccines, so this is a clear case of inconsistent reasoning (details here).

Bad Argument #80). “Some doctors in New Zealand are either intentionally lying about the effectiveness of vaccines, or they are just incredibly ignorant. One such example is Dr John Cameron, who blatantly lied (with a smile on his face) about the flu vaccine on “Campbell Live” earlier this year, and here is the IAS’s response.”
The link to IAS’s response is broken, so I don’t know exactly which claims are being referred to as lies, but the vast majority of the doctor’s claims in the video are backed by solid scientific evidence. The only claims that were suspect were the claim that the flu leads to suicides (I have no idea if that claim is correct or not) and the claim that you can’t even get a mild fever from the flu vaccine (I’m pretty sure that this claim is in fact incorrect); however, neither of those potential errors match the accusation, and even if they did, so what!? Just because one doctor is ignorant doesn’t mean that the flu vaccine doesn’t work (that’s a guilt by association fallacy).

Bad Argument #81). “Courtesy of Dr Goldman: Prior to the universal varicella vaccination program, 95% of adults experienced natural chickenpox (usually as school aged children) These cases were usually benign and resulted in long term immunity. This high percentage of individuals having long term immunity has been compromised by mass vaccination of children which provides at best 70 to 90% immunity that is temporary and of unknown duration, shifting chickenpox to a more vulnerable adult population where chickenpox carries 20 times more risk of death and 15 times more risk of hospitalization compared to children.”
See #48. Also, the overall rates of deaths from chicken pox have dropped markedly following the introduction of the vaccine (Nguyen et al. 2005).

Bad Argument #82). “Many parents have commented that their unvaccinated children are much healthier than their vaccinated children. Here is a blog to read on one such mum’s journey.”
Anecdotes are meaningless. The scientific data show that vaccinated children are healthier (Schmitz et al. 2011). See #7, 29, and 30.

Bad Argument #83). “Why bother getting the flu shot? At best, vaccines are effective against only influenza A and B, which represent only about 10% of all circulating viruses. Therefore, there is a 90% chance you will not even be exposed to an influenza virus.”
How about the fact that during the 1989-1990 outbreak, those who were vaccinated had a 41% lower mortality rate than the unvaccinated (Ahmed et al. 1995)? Influenza is complicated because it constantly evolves. As a result, flu vaccines are not always as effective as most other vaccines, and there is certainly room for improvement, but your odds of getting the flu are generally lower with the vaccine (Osterholm et al. 2012). Also, although not identified in Osterholm’s review, other studies have found that the vaccine is particularly important for the elderly (Nordin et al. 2001).

Bad Argument #84). “Here is a great resource showing cases that were awarded damages by the US Government via the Vaccine Court, which is a federal court of claims for the flu vaccine. Note the number of deaths, in just 2012.”
See #26. Court rulings do not constitute evidence that vaccines are dangerous (judges aren’t doctors or scientists).

Bad Argument #85). “If you’re not yet aware of the lies and scare mongering surrounding the 2006 Bird Flu saga, then start your journey here.”
Seventy-nine deaths across nine countries certainly sounds like cause for concern to me. More importantly, we didn’t have a vaccine for the bird flu in 2006, and even now we are still in the trial stages, so how exactly is this argument about vaccines?

Bad Argument #86). “Oh and don’t forget the Swine Flu hype! History is always repeating itself, so be prepared for more Big Pharma induced scare mongering in the future – with matching vaccines to “save us all” of course!”
Each year in the US alone influenza causes anywhere from 3,300 to 48,600 deaths annually (CDC 2010)! That’s not fear-mongering, that’s a simple fact. The callousness of the anti-vaccine movement astounds me.

Bad Argument #87). “Hassle the Ozzies all you like, but at least they are waking up to the dangers of vaccination, with a 600% increase in the number of parents refusing to vaccinate.”
This is an appeal to popularity fallacy.

Bad Argument #88). “Gardasil contains polysorbate 80, also known as Tween 80, which has been linked to infertility in mice.”
The dose makes the poison. See #10-13.

Bad Argument #89). “An eye-opening report from the International Medical Council on Vaccination.”
Despite its scientific sounding name, the IMCV is a quack group devoted to anti-vaccine ideology. So it’s not a legitimate source. Also, the report in question is full of the typical anti-vaccine drivel that I have spent this entire post refuting.

an illustration of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, anti-vaccine, vaccines and autismBad Argument #90). “More deaths following the MMR vaccine.”
This is yet another post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The fact that an infant died shortly after receiving a vaccine does not mean that the vaccine was responsible. See #23, 24, 29, 30 and 50B.

 

Bad Argument #91). “This brave Queensland Police officer speaks out about vaccine damaged children being written off as cases of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). If only we had more people brave enough to come out and speak the truth about vaccines.”
This isn’t actually an argument, so there is nothing for me to say here (except of course that in some cases vaccines may actually reduce the risk of SIDS [see sources in #64]).

Bad Argument #92). “A University of Pittsburgh study showed that monkeys developed autism-like reactions when given the same vaccines as children.”
That study (Hewitson et al. 2010) was a preliminary pilot study (the term “pilot study” was literally in its title). The full study with a complete sample size just came out and, as often is the case in science, the preliminary results were wrong. There were no differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated monkeys (Gadad et al. 2015; more details here).

Bad Argument #93). “It’s all about the money, honey.”
No, it’s not, and even if it was, that wouldn’t mean that vaccines don’t work/aren’t safe. See #6, 14, and 59.

Bad Argument #94). “If you’d like some real-life stories of vaccine reactions, you’ll find them on this Facebook page.”
Good grief, how many times do I have to say this: anecdotes are meaningless; only peer-reviewed studies matter! See #7, 29, 30, and 82.

Bad Argument #95). “Serious neurologic, thromboembolic, and autoimmune complications have been reported in patients who received human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines.”
First, vaccines do admittedly have side effects but serious complications are rare (see #2 and 3). In this case, however, a large cohort study failed to find evidence that the HPV vaccine causes serious neurological, thromboembolic, or autoimmune complications (Arnheim-Dahlstrom et al. 2013).

Bad Argument #96). “And if you’d like just a little more evidence of the fraudulent activities of Big Pharma, have a read of this.”
Once again, I trust the science not the companies who benefit from it. See #14.

Bad Argument #97). “Dr Janet tells us the real reasons behind why doctors push vaccines.”
Perhaps it’s because they actually care about their patients, and (unlike anti-vaccers) they are scientifically literate and realize that literally thousands of studies have shown that vaccines are safe and effective…literally thousands!

Bad Argument #98). “This resource lists some great books about vaccination, with plenty of reasons to not vaccinate.”
Again, the scientific evidence clearly shows that vaccines are safe and effective. Books, blogs, and anecdotes are irrelevant. Until you can back up your position with peer-reviewed literature, you don’t have an argument.

Bad Argument #99). “Information on the link between diabetes and vaccination.”
What a surprise, they cited more anecdotes and post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies. Unsurprisingly, the actual studies have found that vaccines do not increase the risk of developing diabetes (Jefferson and Demicheli. 1998; DeStefano et al. 2001).

Bad Argument #100). “And argument number 100 to NOT vaccinate: listen to your gut instinct.”
you always have to admit the possibility that you are wrong
This argument beautifully sums up the entire anti-vaccine movement. It is a bold statement that boils down to, “screw the facts, I know I’m right and you’ll never convince me otherwise.” The anti-vaccine movement has absolutely nothing to do with facts, evidence, or legitimate concerns. It is all about fear, assumptions, a herd mentality, and “mommy instincts.” As should be very clear by this point, the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of vaccines. All throughout this post, I have cited study after study that has shown that vaccines are safe and effective, but those studies don’t matter to anti-vaccers. They have decided that vaccines are dangerous and no amount of evidence will ever convince them otherwise. This is why their position is so laughably absurd.

P.S. my gut tells me that if you honestly think that your gut is a more reliable source of scientific information than thousands of peer-reviewed studies, then you’re an idiot. I generally try very hard to avoid calling people “idiots” on this blog (believe me it is really hard sometimes), but in this case there is no other way to accurately describe the situation. Trusting your gut instead of scientific evidence is an inexcusable level of willful ignorance that can only be described as stupidity. It’s one thing to be uniformed but willing to learn. It is something else entirely to refuse to listen to contrary evidence and insist that you are right even though you are clearly wrong.

 

Note: All links to scientifically inaccurate websites are redirected through donotlink.com to avoid boosting those websites’ ratings.

Note: I have made several updates to this article to include additional sources (or in some cases clarifications) that were recommended by readers. Many thanks to everyone who has made these suggestions.

Peer-reviewed sources
I apologize that some of these are behind paywalls. You may be able to get copies through your library or by simply emailing the authors.

This entry was posted in Vaccines/Alternative Medicine and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to 100 bad arguments against vaccines

  1. Thank you for taking the trouble to write this. I shall enjoy reading this. I’ve also bookmarked it for future reference!

    Like

  2. Orion says:

    Fantastic article. I will regularly be sharing this every time someone even tries to preach their anti-vaccer stupidity.

    Like

  3. This was an amazing reference source. I laughed that so many logical fallacies are used over and over again, because, as we all know, logical fallacies are used when one doesn’t have evidence.

    One suggestion–the “profit motive” of Big Pharma and vaccines is another one of those illogical beliefs of the anti-vaccination front. If all that drove Big Pharma were profits, they’d destroy every vaccine on the planet. Treating children for measles in the NICU would make Big Pharma several thousand times more cash than a $20 vaccine.

    Like

    • Fallacy Man says:

      Thanks. I guess I didn’t make it very clear, but in one of the arguments about money, I did mention that vaccines aren’t worth much to pharmaceutical companies and included a link to your fantastic article about vaccine profits. I’ve made a few edits to that argument to make the link to your post more obvious (it’s defiantly a post that everyone should read).

      Like

  4. Thank you. This is a great resource. Bookmarked.

    Like

  5. andyadkins says:

    Hypervigilant parents notice behavioral changes resulting vasoconstrictive (reduced O2, nutrient, hormone uptake…like amphetamines) immune response by the blood brain barrier to vaccine agonists until T cell memory adaptations. These parents bring their kids to the doctors or dose them with OTC or homeopathic remedies that in excess compromise BBB with inflammation allowing the invasion of peripheral immune cells to overwork astrocytes (interfering with natural early development processing & presenting meningeal risks)….
    The cocktail is a catalyst. Single disease vaccinations are easily systematized for scheduling total cocktail as sum….

    Like

  6. Natural – appeal to the “Natural is good” fallacy. Health – who would be against health? Warrior – join us; we’re heroes.

    And all we have against this are facts and logic. No wonder measles is making a comeback.

    The response, here as to other kinds of unreason, must be to make reason seem more attractive at the gut level. But how?

    Like

  7. Alec Duncan says:

    Great article – thank you, bookmarked. You might want to add this reference to #95, as it directly refutes the claim that the HPV vaccine causes neurologic, thromboembolic, or autoimmune complications. http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5906

    Like

  8. M. C. says:

    Whew! That was quite a marathon of tiny screen reading (I’m on my phone), particularly since the arguments had to be so repetitious.

    I’m impressed. That can’t have been easy. But it’s an incredible resource, with all the studies you gathered.

    Sadly, it won’t make a difference to any true blue A.V., but perhaps someone who doesn’t understand and who’s on the fence will read it and make the better choice.

    Like

  9. Reblogged this on gemskibabydoll and commented:
    Brilliant stuff!!

    Like

  10. Heather Vee says:

    This is great – thanks!

    There are two things I might add:

    # 53: Vaccine-derived polio is real, but it is incredibly rare and typically only occurs in under-vaccinated populations: http://www.who.int/features/qa/64/en/

    # 74: The “study” that this absurd 4,250% increase is based upon has been thoroughly critiqued here: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/28/h1n1-vaccine-and-miscarriages-more-antivaccine-fear-mongering-about-flu-vaccines/
    Not just VAERS data but an Internet survey, too – totally reliable!

    Like

  11. Marcus B says:

    I can already predict at least one of the responses you are likely to get. They often use this quote from this study “Although most patients recovered without permanent sequelae, the high number of cases each year made measles a significant cause of serious morbidity and mortality Langmuir showed that >90% of Americans were infected with the measles virus by age 15 years [1]. This equated to roughly 1 birth cohort (4 million people) infected with measles each year. ” : http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S1.long and then point out that the CDC’s number of 400-500 deaths a year in the US before the MMR means that the 1 in 1,000 death rate is off since there was “roughly 1 birth cohort” infected with measles every year.

    Thank you for writing this! Will save it to reference in the future.

    Like

    • Fallacy Man says:

      My understanding is that the 4 million number was an estimated number of cases, whereas the 1 in 1000 death rate came from reported cases. In other words, if you divide the reported number of cases by the reported number of deaths, you get roughly 1 in 1000 (I should probably look into that further though).

      Like

      • Marcus B says:

        Yes, I think that is their point. When you divide deaths over how many actual cases of measles instead of just reported cases the death rate is a lot lower than 1 out of 1,000.

        Like

        • Marcus B says:

          Edit to add – It would be interesting if someone could look into the discrepancy there since that quote from the study gets brought up quite a bit by anti-vaccine advocates to dispute how serious measles can be. “See the death rate is only 1 per 10,000!”

          Like

  12. Jo Whitaker says:

    Bad Argument #60). “Vaccines are the cause for many of the chronic diseases we see these days.”
    I think I know where that bad idea comes from: Dead people don’t get chronic diseases.
    You can’t get chronic heart disease at age 50 if you died of whooping cough at 18 months.
    You can’t get dementia at age 80 if you died of measles at age 3.
    You can’t get if you died of .

    Vaccines don’t cause chronic illnesses. They let you live long enough to get sick with something else.

    Like

    • Jo Whitaker says:

      Apparently I used some codes the software here doesn’t like. That next-to-last line is supposed to say “You can’t get [disease of aging] if you died of [now-preventable childhood illness].

      Like

  13. JJW says:

    In #56: the DOSE makes the poison. Excellent article.

    Like

  14. Rob says:

    #3 you forgot to mention that the rate of Life threatening complications of the actual diseases themselves is much greater than that of the vaccines. Like measles and SSPE.

    Like

  15. #30 Mayim Bialik is NOT anti-vaccine. I just don’t know what celebrities I can trust anymore.
    https://m.facebook.com/official.mayim.bialik/posts/10155194874840008

    Like

    • Cat Scarters says:

      Thank goodness! My heart sank a bit when I read that. Not, of course, that our belief in vaccine efficacy has anything to do with what celebrities think, but the fact remains that they are influential – and she’s a scientist to boot.

      Liked by 1 person

  16. Susy K says:

    Great article..thanks so much for compiling all this is one awesome spot.

    Like

  17. Melissa Miller says:

    I made that meme with the baby like 3 or 4 years ago for a pro vaccine parenting group or page on Facebook. I don’t really have proof, I no longer have it saved on my phone but I made it. I’ve seen it float around the internet here and there and find it cool that it’s been used. Anyway, you wanted to know lol. My name is Melissa Miller and I’m a stay at hom, homeschooling mom in southwest Michigan.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Melissa Miller says:

    *stay at home

    Like

  19. Nath says:

    totally agree – please, please, check use of your / you’re – this too adds to credibility

    Like

  20. Freereel says:

    AH HA HA HA HA! What a shill!

    Obviously some of the arguments against vaccines are reasonable. These are medical injections with known side effects and risks, many of which are mentioned on the warning labels! The author pretends to rationally consider these arguments, but the fact that he tries to debunk 100 out of 100 arguments demonstrates that this is a piece of ADVOCACY, not rationality.

    My favorite is his response to anti-vaccine argument number 4 (There are no long term studies that have been done on the effects of vaccination.) “Define “long term”? Is “long term” 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? Without a clear definition of “long term” this criticism is vague to the point of uselessness. There have been several studies that have looked at vaccine safety over multiple years (Idbal et al. 2013; Ferris et al. 2014; Vincenzo et al. 2014), but “long-term” really needs to be defined beforehand.”

    Okay, Bill Clinton! It depends what the meaning of “is” is! Great argument!

    And the 3 studies he links to are ridiculous–2 say that the HPV vaccine is safe, when it has already been proven not to be and the Texas Governor got in huge trouble for trying to mandate it. One of the studies only looks at efficacy, NOT safety. One of the studies was explicitly commissioned to debunk the concerns about vaccine safety. And they focused on only SOME of the antigens in the vaccine.

    Just pathetic. You have to wonder about the sick motivations of people who write things like this. Are they shills for Big Pharma? Do they hate parents? Do they hate freedom? Do they hate open discussion? Do they think people are so stupid they can’t handle ANY nuance, so they must be force fed black and white choices?

    Look, vaccines have big risks, the vaccine schedule is massively bigger than it used to be, the safety of injecting your kid with 60 different shots in the first few years of life is unknown and unproven, some of these diseases are NOT life-threatening, etc. etc. But people like this keep trying to insist that vaccines are 100% awesome. It’s frankly embarrassing. This article reads more like politics than rationality, although he tries as hard as he can to dress up his “debunking” as scientific.

    Like

    • Fallacy Man says:

      Fine, you win, I support science and accept the results of thousands of peer-reviewed studies, the only reasonable conclusion is that I’m a shill (note the immense sarcasm).

      Also, good job making rational arguments and backing up your claims with proper sources (please see the Charlie Brown meme).

      Liked by 1 person

      • freereel says:

        Fallacy Man, sorry to be so aggressive in my first post, prompting you to sarcastically respond to me as a know-nothing (which I admit I sounded like with my tone.)

        I do acknowledge that many of the biases you point out are indeed being used in anti-vaxxer thinking. And I further acknowledge that you have taken a very rational approach to the topic, which I appreciate.

        I am a skeptic, but I think 80% of your original post is right. I would like to calmly engage you on a few serious points, where I would love to read your thoughts/reactions because they would help my own thinking.

        First, you mention thousands of peer-reviewed studies. But if there were thousands of peer-reviewed studies relevant to the safety of the intensive vaccination schedule in the first year of babies’ lives, why on earth would you have instead linked to studies investigating Gardasil, the HPV vaccine for adolescent girls? While tangentially related, Gardasil studies seem a bit wide of the mark for parents concerned about the infant MMR vaccine.

        And why would you use as your primary argument “it depends what you mean by long term”? If there were really thousands of studies, surely multiple time periods are covered.

        If you showed a really compelling 5-year study, and anti-vaxxers responded by complaining that they would only be satisfied with 10 years, then you’d have a good point. But if you just wave your hands and say these people are never satisfied WITHOUT linking to some of this compelling science, the “how long is long term” point feels more like an evasive argument than a compelling one.

        My understanding is that there are NOT thousands of peer-reviewed studies that take the truly scientific double-blind experiment approach in assessing the safety of these vaccines or of the overall vaccine schedule.

        Many vaccination advocates (although not you in this article), often explain this lack of studies like this:

        “The reason there are no long-term studies comparing vaccinated groups vs. unvaccinated groups is that vaccines are so safe and effective that it would be unethical to deny them to anyone, so we can’t ethically have an unvaccinated control group.”

        This argument ignores the reality that there are many groups of unvaccinated children available for control groups/study, ranging from the Amish to medically underserved poor communities to rich purity-obsessed Marin County families. Obviously their relative health or lack thereof could have many causes having nothing to do with vaccines, but it’s simply not true that there are no examples of unvaccinated people to study.

        To your credit, you didn’t make that argument. But you instead suggest that these studies DO exist. So the question is, are the pro-vaxxers who argue that studies are unethical just unaware of the thousands of peer-reviewed studies you refer to? Or are you using a large number of narrow studies like the three you linked to (2 about Gardasil for adolescents) as sort of a quantity-over-quality blunt tool to suggest that parental concerns about giving newborns literally dozens of injections in their first year of life are unfounded.

        On some level, this comes down to a burden of proof question. Your starting point is that medical and governmental authorities are right, and skeptics are wrong. You therefore say, reasonably, “Hey anti-vaxxers, you really have no evidence to support your concerns. There are no studies proving that vaccines are harmful/dangerous, etc.” But as a skeptic, I have the opposite starting point. I think, “You want to give my newborn lots of injections? Are you SURE that’s safe?”

        What I would like to see are studies comparing populations of children getting the full vaccination schedule with similar populations of unvaccinated children, following them for, say, 5 years, and comparing the incidence of all these maladies that parents anecdotally report (asthma, allergies, autism, SIDS, etc. etc.) There do not seem to be a lot of studies like this.

        What I am aware of is the warning labels on vaccines. How did the manufacturers identify the risks they warn against on the label? Presumably from studies which showed that those risks are real. What are your thoughts about those studies?

        I’m not even arguing that vaccines should be banned if they DO have some low-probability side effects. Maybe the trade-off is worth it. But I’m concerned that there seems to be a dearth of investigation of the potential risks and downsides. And I’m concerned about the tendency of the medical establishment to shout down people who have questions about this.

        One final thought/question. In my opinion, many highly rational vaccine advocates overstate their arguments out of a sense of paternalism. They are convinced that vaccines are good, that the benefits significantly outweigh the risks both on an individual and on a group basis. They are further convinced (not unfairly) that the average American can’t handle nuance and complexity. They worry that any honest discussion of risks could confuse skittish parents and lead to lower vaccination rates overall, which would be not only bad for those unvaccinated kids, but also bad for herd immunity. In order to discourage parents from making the wrong decision, advocates deliberately oversimplify the issue and downplay the risks. They do this for a good cause, but they do it. The problem with this approach is that you can’t simultaneously minimize the risks through oversimplification and claim to be taking a purely rational approach. What are your thoughts on that? As I mentioned in my previous post, the fact that you debunked 100 out of 100 arguments makes your post feel more like advocacy than like a purely rational analysis.

        Okay, sorry for such a long post. Hopefully you can tell that I’m sincere in wanting your opinions on these questions. As I said at the beginning, I am a skeptic, but I think 80% of your original post is right. I’m open to buying in even more strongly to your arguments, and this long post details the things I’m curious about.

        Thank you for any thoughts you may have.

        Like

        • Fallacy Man says:

          I will get back to you, but I am in the middle of an intensive part of my field work, so I have limited internet access and will not have the time or resources to respond for a while (probably about two weeks).

          Like

        • Fallacy Man says:

          There are several things that need to be clarified. First, I merely stated that there are thousands of studies on the safety of vaccines. You seem to be confusing this by applying my “thousands of studies” statement to individual aspects of vaccines (i.e., I never said, “thousands of long-term studies” or “thousands of double-blind studies” I merely made a general statement that there are thousands of studies, and that statement is true). Of course there are going to fewer studies the more specific you are.

          Second, I’m not sure what you mean by, “But if there were thousands of peer-reviewed studies relevant to the safety of the intensive vaccination schedule in the first year of babies’ lives, why on earth would you have instead linked to studies investigating Gardasil, the HPV vaccine for adolescent girls?” Throughout this post, I cited lots of different studies on various aspects of the vaccine schedule, especially the MMR vaccine. Are you talking specifically about the “long-term” argument?

          I’m guessing you are, so let’s talk about number 4 for a minute. First, my stipulation that “long term” has to be defined beforehand is not a minor point or simply “hand-waving.” Rather, it is absolutely critical. The claim by the original article was, “There are no long term studies that have been done on the effects of vaccination,” but “long term” is subjective. Whether or not that claim is true is 100% dependant on how you define long term. Also, realize that this claim was a blanket statement that “no long term studies exist.” It did not specify which vaccines were being talked about. So simply showing that at least one long term study on at least one vaccine does in fact exist is enough to debunk this claim.

          Further, this “no long term studies” argument is one that I encounter frequently, and when I have debated anti-vaccers on it by presenting them with studies such as Iqbal et al. 2013 which looked at the effects of early childhood vaccines in 7-10 year olds (i.e. it looked at the children several years after vaccination), they nearly always respond with, “that’s not long enough to count as ‘long term’.” Which, again, is why it absolutely has to be defined beforehand.

          Additionally, you have yet to give a valid reason why my citations are not “compelling.” You say you are concerned about the long term effects of the vaccine schedule, but that is exactly what Iqbal et al. 2013 looked at. They examined the effects that the number of antigens that a child was exposed to would have several years later. What is your basis for rejecting their results? There are also studies such as Schmitz et al. 2011 which I cited several times and which compared the health of vaccinated vs unvaccinated children in several age groups and consistently found that the only difference was the vaccinated children had fewer vaccine-preventable diseases. When I show this study to anti-vaccers, however, I get responses like, “well we don’t know what the effects are over 30 years.” One person even told me that he won’t be convinced until we have accumulated 300 years of vaccine data and looked at the effects across people’s entire life spans. This is, once again, why “long term” absolutely has to be defined beforehand. The argument is utterly meaningless otherwise.

          Now, let’s talk about the nature of the scientific studies. Here you contradict yourself. First, you assert that there “are NOT thousands of peer-reviewed studies that take the truly scientific double-blind experiment approach in assessing the safety of these vaccines or of the overall vaccine schedule.” This is true (though not being double-blind does not mean that that something isn’t, “truly scientific”), and this situation exists for the very reason that you cite. Namely, we know enough about vaccines that doing placebo controlled studies on vaccines is unethical. You then proceed to say that we should be doing studies using the unvaccinated. This is where the contradiction comes in. We cannot use groups like the Amish (many of whom do vaccinate, btw) in a placebo controlled, randomized, double-blinded study because we carefully selected the control group. In other words, you cannot compare the Amish with everyone else because there are countless other lifestyle and genetic differences which would confound the results. In other words, simply comparing unvaccinated communities with vaccinated communities wouldn’t be the type of double-blind study that you just asserted that we needed.

          The only way to do a proper double-blind study would be to take a population, limit it to people with similar backgrounds, economics, access to health care, etc., then randomly select half of them and give them the vaccine, while giving the other half the placebo. Doing that is, however, extremely unethical. It’s like randomly selecting a group of people and telling them not to wear seatbelts so that we can do a proper study on the effects of seatbelts.

          As loath as I am to post a youtube video, here is an amusing and terse explanation of the problem with what you are proposing.

          So, what type of study can we do? Well, in the early stages of testing a new vaccine, a double-blind placebo controlled study is often conducted. More often than not, however, we do retrospective, case-controlled studies. These are difficult and inherently limited, but basically, we take a population of people with similar backgrounds, economics, etc. and compare those who chose to be vaccinated with those who chose not to be vaccinated. As Offit explains in the video, it is, however, very difficult to get large enough sample sizes while still keeping the groups similar, especially since the unvaccinated often avoid modern medical practices. For example, I have some anti-vaccine family members who never go to the doctor and only use “natural” remedies. It would be completely invalid to compare the overall health of their children with the overall health of a group of vaccinated children because all of the other lifestyle differences (especially with regards to medical practices) could confound the results.

          Therefore, case-controlled studies are generally limited to a very focused outcome such as, “do vaccines cause autism?” The more that you limit the scope of the study, the easier it is match groups and compare the vaccinated and unvaccinated, and that type of study has been done thousands of times. Granted, This approach is admittedly limited. Each study only gives us one small piece of the puzzle, and these studies are less powerful than a double-blind, placebo controlled study, but they all paint a consistent picture. Namely, they continue to find that there are no substantial differences among vaccinated and unvaccinated children other than the fact that vaccinated children get vaccine-preventable diseases less frequently. So if you are after one single study that look at numerous health conditions over many years, you aren’t going to find it because conducting that study simply isn’t possible. What you can find, however, are numerous studies on very specific health outcomes, and when we piece those studies together, we get a consistent picture that vaccines are safe.

          You brought up the burden of proof, but it is squarely on your shoulders. For some reason that I truly don’t understand, you keep focusing on the links to the Gardasil, while ignoring all of the other papers I cited in this post. I cited papers looking at the effects of the number of vaccines a child receives, the rates of autism, asthma, SIDS, etc. Why are you ignoring all of those studies? You keep telling me that those studies don’t exist, yet I cited them in the post. A skeptic is someone who demands evidence, but is then willing to accept that evidence when presented with it. I have presented you with numerous peer-reviewed studies and you can easily find more on Pub Med and Google Scholar. Why do you reject them?

          For the side-effects of vaccines see the link in 50B.

          Regarding your final comment. I do not think that we should overstate the safety/importance of vaccines just to get people to use them, but there is no need to “overstate” anything because they are extremely safe and effective.

          I would really love for this not to drag on and become a lengthy debate, so I am trying to conclude by asking you a simple question: what exactly would it take to convince you that vaccines are safe? We have numerous studies showing that they don’t cause autism (several of which I cited), studies showing that they don’t cause SIDS (which I cited), studies showing that they don’t cause asthma (which I cited), studies looking at the effects of the vaccine schedule several years after vaccination (which I cited), studies comparing the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated children (which I cited), you can also find massive reviews like this one by the IOM (http://www.nap.edu/read/13563/chapter/1) which looked at the results of numerous scientific studies and concluded that the vaccine schedule was safe, etc., but you don’t seem to care about these studies. You seem happier to simply pretend that they don’t exist. So my question for you is two-fold. First, why do you reject all of these studies? Second, what would it take to convince you that vaccines are safe (note: if you are going to give an absurd and arbitrary answer to that question [like the person who demanded 300 years of data], please also justify your answer).

          Liked by 1 person

  21. The Ceej says:

    It took me a week to read this article. That’s sad considering how short it COULD have been. Here’s a few pointers.

    1. If the argument is just a link, and that link is broken, don’t even bother. You can’t refute that because there’s nothing there to refute.

    2. If the argument is so ridiculous that it’s not even worth your time, it hardly seems worth mentioning.

    3. You could have combined all the appeals to anecdotes in a single entry.

    4. You should have left off the entries dealing exlcusively with the flu vaccine. There’s nothing crazy about opposing the flu vaccine. Most people do. Hell, most NURSES do. Even if I were to give you the science on it… Hell, if I were to concede that it was 100% effective at preventing the flu every time, I STILL wouldn’t get it. Why? Well, on the one hand, I have a 100% chance of getting stabbed in the butt with an excruciatingly painful needle, and on the other, I have MAYBE a 5% chance of geetting a small case of the sniffles… Gee! Whatever will I choose?

    Like

    • Fallacy Man says:

      Perhaps you should actually read the sources that I cited regarding the flu because over 3,000 people die from it every year in the US alone. That is far more series than, “a small case of the sniffles.” Also, even if most people/nurses oppose the vaccine, that would be an appeal to popularity fallacy, its not logically valid. Further, I strongly suspect that your claim isn’t even correct. I don’t suppose you can provide any sources?

      Like

  22. Max says:

    In explanation for #58, I noticed a typo – “dose” is written as “does”.

    Like

Comments are closed.