Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble
If it is as you say, then the numbers should have already begun reversing themselves following the loud and continued discrediting of that study, and all should return to normal in a few years. That would make the NYTimes article little more than gloating. "Ha ha, those fools got what's coming to them."
On the other hand, if vaccination uptake rates continue dropping, one has to ask why. There's only so many times they can say the study has been discredited, and only so long they can point to one "scare" from 15 years ago as being the sole impetus for people's decisions today.
Or worse yet, what if vaccination uptake does return to previous levels, but the disease rate continues rising? At some point in the next couple of decades the narrative will be updated, and we all have our guesses about which way it will go. It's my personal belief that this particular medical policy aims to circumvent biology in the name of a disease-free utopia that can never be achieved, that's all.
|
It may have been one study 15 years ago, but the press here and over there have played their part in making sure it remained current in people's minds for much longer. There was a broad consensus on vaccination. The last 15 years of fear mongering press reports have played their part in breaking that consensus.
Anyway: I don't necessarily disagree with your last point. I get where you're coming from on that now. But..I don't think it's a diseasefree utopia they're aiming for. I think they just wanted to cut the high numbers of infant deaths to a handful of common childhood diseases,