I'm not much for debating with people over the internet. That being said, there is a guy on another site I frequent who is constantly going on about how terrible vaccines are (every site has them, right?) I point out that millions and millions of people have gotten the classic "booster" MMR shot, and the fraction of people with averse effects is very small, as would happen with prettiest much anything. Some people can't eat peanuts.
His retort today was that the booster shot "is not the same booster shot we got as kids." He then listed something from activistpost that had "100 compiled studies on vaccine dangers", although most of them were pre-1996.
We THEN confronted him about having legit peer-reviewed science, and apparently there are a few articles from the British Medical Journal in there. Sorry, I can't be bothered to check out all 100 articles.
Anyhow, I'll shut my rant down, and go back to my original question. What, if anything, is different about the MMR shot since we were kids?
His retort today was that the booster shot "is not the same booster shot we got as kids." He then listed something from activistpost that had "100 compiled studies on vaccine dangers", although most of them were pre-1996.
We THEN confronted him about having legit peer-reviewed science, and apparently there are a few articles from the British Medical Journal in there. Sorry, I can't be bothered to check out all 100 articles.
Anyhow, I'll shut my rant down, and go back to my original question. What, if anything, is different about the MMR shot since we were kids?
via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=264512&goto=newpost
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire