A key difference between immunization supporters and antivaxers

White Shark: what if there was a large group of people convinced that herbs are the root of all evil and cause all sorts of diseases and problems. Those people could argue that the only reason evidence hasn't been found to prove their claims is that researchers are getting paid off by the supplement companies and alt practitioners. They could say:

"Count all herb users with Autism spectrum.
Count all herb users with ADD/ADHD.
Count all herb users with diabetes.
Count all herb users with epilepsy.
Count all herb users with cancers.
Count all herb users with clinical depression.
etc...
.. etc

and then

Compare the numbers between herb users and non-herb users.

Why is this so difficult to do?

No money for this simple task?

Coverup!!!


Except that this would be a silly argument, just as it is regarding immunization. There's no evidence that either vaccines or herbs cause these problems, therefore there's no justification for spending limited research dollars disproving the claims of obsessive "antis".

If the "antis" really believe in their claims about vaccination, they can put up the dough for good, solid studies. Surely all the chiropractors and other alt practitioners, and the people who fulminate against vaccines have enough money put together to finance this research. Yet it's easier for them to demand that others do the work for them.

The situation is similar to those antivaxers who make deceptive arguments based on federal compensation fund payout for the relative few with vaccine-related injuries. Where are the compensation payments from antivaxers to families whose children have been injured or killed by vaccine-preventable diseases? How come the antivaxers haven't established such a fund, to pay for damage resulting from their deceptions and falsehoods?
Tweet