Speaking of rhetoric...perhaps equating a theory or an argument to a myth - straight out of the starting gates - is a wee strong.
If a theory/argument has no scientific basis, I think it's fair to call it a myth.
Here is how two different dictionaries define the word 'myth':
1. an idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true (
Merriam-Webster)
2. a widely held but false belief or idea (
Oxford)
But if you can suggest a better word for a theory that has no truth or validity to it, I'm open to ideas.
Just out of interest, where is your second David Gorski quote from?
Forgot to include the link, sorry about that. Here is the
blog post the quote was taken from.
You're basically saying that if a scientist attempts to have a civil conversation about a specific issue (mandatory carpet-bombing style vaccination), he/she is in reality an evil handlebar mustache-twisting anti-vaxxer (as per your snarky citation) trying to put all society at risk of killer epidemics... congrats for the twisted logic.
Except that's not what I was saying at all. Thank you for putting words in my mouth and then congratulating me for the "twisted logic" though. I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion when I specifically said that anti-vaxxers are more interested in fear-mongering and spreading propaganda than vaccine safety.
Let me make it crystal clear: I do
not think anyone is purposely "trying to put all society at risk of killer epidemics". Only a psychopath would do that, and the anti-vaccination movement seems to be mostly made up of parents who just want to do the best thing for their kid(s). That includes Obukhanych.
But fear-mongering--whatever her intentions--is still fear-mongering. All the good intentions in the world won't change the fact that she is spreading dangerous myths that lead to naive parents making misinformed choices, which in turn leads to falling immunization rates, a breakdown in herd immunity, and outbreaks of all these awful diseases that were mostly eliminated due to mass vaccination campaigns. Again, I am
not saying that's the outcome they're hoping for, but it will happen if we let the them and their beliefs go unchallenged because we don't want to infringe on their ~right to choose~ or whatever.
The point I was
trying to make was that the arguments she makes in her open letter are, at the very least, intellectually dishonest. She takes a kernel of truth (i.e., quote-mining studies where a vaccine was shown to not be 100% safe or 100% effective) and, to quote David Gorski, exaggerates "far beyond what the scientific data will support". Some of the things she says are just straight up fiction. At the same time, she glosses over the very real risks that come with the diseases that these vaccines prevent and barely touches on all the benefits of mass vaccination campaigns. She misrepresents the evidence and then creates doubt where none exists.
It's disingenuous and misleading as it gives the impression that there is a legitimate controversy surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccines when there simply isn't. This kind of fear-mongering is a lot more subtle than others, which is why I felt it was necessary to warn everyone that they should be reading this letter with a critical eye (i.e., not take her claims at face value) by pointing out some of the red flags of anti-vaccine rhetoric.
There are responsible and constructive ways to discuss issues in vaccine safety (no one is denying that they exist), but that's not what Obukhanych is doing here. She was taking the "vaccines do more harm than the diseases they supposedly prevent" approach, which is reckless and reprehensible, regardless of her intentions.
