Canada vaccine awareness programs

[Doctor.Sphinx]

I'll approach this from a different angle... provide me with one piece of evidence/research/study that meets the lofty standards you've set in this thread for "shooting down" the pro-vaccine research.

Nuh uh uh! First tenet of medicine and the burden of proof!

I'm not funded to prove your vaccines are dangerous, but if they're safe, and you want to convince me to inject your snake-oil into me and mine, first you must prove to me that they're safe. As you cannot, I will not. If you could, I probably still wouldn't, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it, and I know we won't come to it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Nuh uh uh! First tenet of medicine and the burden of proof!

I'm not funded to prove your vaccines are dangerous, but if they're safe, and you want to convince me to inject your snake-oil into me and mine, first you must prove to me that they're safe. As you cannot, I will not. If you could, I probably still wouldn't, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it, and I know we won't come to it.

Like I said before...just because you choose to find nonsensical reasons to reject the numerous studies that I and other users have linked doesn't make them any less existent or real.

It appears that you're just wired to want to believe the conspiracy side no matter what is presented to you. This is the point in the debate where it just becomes a circular argument. The anti-vaccine side requests proof of efficacy and safety, it's provided to them, and they respond with "I don't like that study, find a different one" and then all of the pro vaccine people go on hunt for various links and it's all just a waste of time since no matter what they provide, the anti-vaccine people already have their conclusion formed and nothing will change their mind (sort of like flat earthers, birthers, and 9/11 truthers).

Just out of curiosity, do you believe in Chiropractors & Homeopathy? If so, then you're in no position to refer to anything else as "snake-oil".

It's interesting the double standard here...

You demand that everyone else provide evidence to support their position, they do, you claim to not like it...but then when it's requested that you provide evidence to support your position, you dodge and claim that the onus is on us to disprove you.


So, my original comment still stands...if you can't provide a single study that meets the standards that you set for the studies you're requesting from us, then your position doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Most are actually really not "anti-vaccine" at all. There are a few, of course, but many, many people are merely simply selective vaccine proponents, or spaced vaccine proponents, choosing to space them out and not abide by the demanded schedule, cramming them all in. They believe it is safer, and that is ok.

It's not okay...wrong is wrong (especially with regards to health and medicine).

Claiming that folks are "selective proponents" or "spaced vaccine proponents" or "believing it's safer" is just a watered down version of false theory.

For instance, I'll highlight another form of medical pseudoscience. The "tobacco healers" in Indonesia. They swear up and down that smoking (or in some cases pumping tobacco smoke into openings created in the skin) actually cures all diseases, and much like all other forms of pseudoscience, they've got no shortage of supposed antidotes and a die-hard support base in their country that swears it's legit.

If a person came out with a slightly watered down version of that and said "well, it's not fair to claim that all of us believe that it cures everything, I just believe that it cures a few things"...just because they're not as far off the reservation as the others, that doesn't make their position "reasonable" or "ok".

It's the old logical fallacy of "not as bad as the worst" = "good"...it doesn't. People who aren't fully anti-vaccine, but believe that being "vaccine selective" or "staggering" is safer are still wrong like the full-blown anti-vaccine crowed, they're just wrong in a different way. In either case, it's a health concern.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

It's not okay...wrong is wrong (especially with regards to health and medicine).

Claiming that folks are "selective proponents" or "spaced vaccine proponents" or "believing it's safer" is just a watered down version of false theory.

For instance, I'll highlight another form of medical pseudoscience. The "tobacco healers" in Indonesia. They swear up and down that smoking (or in some cases pumping tobacco smoke into openings created in the skin) actually cures all diseases, and much like all other forms of pseudoscience, they've got no shortage of supposed antidotes and a die-hard support base in their country that swears it's legit.

If a person came out with a slightly watered down version of that and said "well, it's not fair to claim that all of us believe that it cures everything, I just believe that it cures a few things"...just because they're not as far off the reservation as the others, that doesn't make their position "reasonable" or "ok".

It's the old logical fallacy of "not as bad as the worst" = "good"...it doesn't. People who aren't fully anti-vaccine, but believe that being "vaccine selective" or "staggering" is safer are still wrong like the full-blown anti-vaccine crowed, they're just wrong in a different way. In either case, it's a health concern.

Please explain WHY it is "wrong" to selectively vaccinate, or space them out?

Why on earth could it possibly be unacceptable or "wrong" to space out vaccines? Or decline the less trustworthy ones (many decline flu and Gardasil, given all the reports of side effects, for example).

Who are you to decide what is right or wrong for others to put into their bodies, given their own physical issues, allergies, and health conditions? The audacity of this assertion is breathtaking.

What one puts in his own body is a decision that a person has to make himself (assuming competent age - otherwise parents make it), in conjunction with his own doctor. His body, his decision. Not your decision.

Your analogy of Tobacco use in third countries is inapposite. Tobacco use is completely voluntary and not at all the same as forced vaccination of all beginning at birth. Smoking is always bad - especially for susceptible people. Vaccines are always bad - for susceptible people. Perhaps that's the analogy you mean.

Indonesia is torn between its commitment to producing tobacco for financial gain for the Overlords that still make this stuff, and stronger discouragement of tobacco use, by the way. Bob Dylan was right; you've got to serve somebody.

Most selective vaccine users eventually get completely caught up with whatever the schedule is this minute. Who are you to decide this cannot occur? Some never take flu vaccine (or Gardasil, like say, my entire generation), and have suffered no ill effects whatsoever from failure to take these vaccines.

There is zero necessity to begin vaccination at birth and a lot of risk. That is merely a convenience measure for doctors, while the child is a captive audience (assuming hospital birth).

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Nuh uh uh! First tenet of medicine and the burden of proof!

I'm not funded to prove your vaccines are dangerous, but if they're safe, and you want to convince me to inject your snake-oil into me and mine, first you must prove to me that they're safe. As you cannot, I will not. If you could, I probably still wouldn't, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it, and I know we won't come to it.

Exactly. Burden of proof always remains on the one making the authoritative assertion in the first place that something is safe. It never shifts to the other party to prove a negative. This is a rule of law as well.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Exactly. Burden of proof always remains on the one making the authoritative assertion in the first place that something is safe. It never shifts to the other party to prove a negative. This is a rule of law as well.

No, but once the side that's making the assertion has already provide ample evidence that it's safe. When the other side makes a counter-assertion that those reports are wrong, the onus then gets transferred to them to provide evidence as to why they believe the studies and reports are wrong.

If that weren't the case then winning a debate would be as easy as
"Using Aloe Lotion is safe"
-"I don't believe you"
"Here are the tests and peer reviewed studies showing that it is"
-"No, I think those tests are bogus, I still don't believe them....I win! The end!"

There's a vast difference between satisfying the burden of proof and "You must convince me, personally, in spite of my preexisting biases". ...and there is such a thing as objective reality and facts.

For instance, if I say I have 10 fingers and that can easily be observed and proven...the fact that someone doesn't believe it doesn't mean they've won the debate on the the grounds of "well, I still believe you only have 9, and the burden of proof is on you to convince me otherwise".

If it were the latter, then conspiracy theorists would win every single debate known to man, by default, simply because they refused to accept any and all evidence the other side provided. Which is basically what's happening here...ample information has been provided by our side, the opposing side has presented anecdotes, misrepresentation of what a court ruling meant (and I posted the courts actual release explaining that...despite the fact that people still seem to be clinging to the false notion that the court ruling validates their opinion..even though the court went out of their way to release statement providing clarity on the matter), and 2 studies, so poorly executed, that even anti-vaccine websites retracted them).

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

No, but once the side that's making the assertion has already provide ample evidence that it's safe. When the other side makes a counter-assertion that those reports are wrong, the onus then gets transferred to them to provide evidence as to why they believe the studies and reports are wrong.

If that weren't the case then winning a debate would be as easy as
"Using Aloe Lotion is safe"
-"I don't believe you"
"Here are the tests and peer reviewed studies showing that it is"
-"No, I think those tests are bogus, I still don't believe them....I win! The end!"

There's a vast difference between satisfying the burden of proof and "You must convince me, personally, in spite of my preexisting biases". ...and there is such a thing as objective reality and facts.

For instance, if I say I have 10 fingers and that can easily be observed and proven...the fact that someone doesn't believe it doesn't mean they've won the debate on the the grounds of "well, I still believe you only have 9, and the burden of proof is on you to convince me otherwise".

If it were the latter, then conspiracy theorists would win every single debate known to man, by default, simply because they refused to accept any and all evidence the other side provided. Which is basically what's happening here...ample information has been provided by our side, the opposing side has presented anecdotes, misrepresentation of what a court ruling meant (and I posted the courts actual release explaining that...despite the fact that people still seem to be clinging to the false notion that the court ruling validates their opinion..even though the court went out of their way to release statement providing clarity on the matter), and 2 studies, so poorly executed, that even anti-vaccine websites retracted them).

When the evidence comes from the fox guarding the henhouse, then it must be scrutinized to a higher level, particularly when reams of anecdotal evidence as well as other medical sources say otherwise.

Take a look at the Merck study here: Comvax Vaccine - FDA prescribing information, side effects and uses

882 infants were assigned in a 3:1 ratio to receive either COMVAX or PedvaxHIB plus RECOMBIVAX HB at separate injection sites at 2, 4, and 12–15 months of age. Children may have also received routine pediatric immunizations. The children were monitored daily for five days after each injection for injection-site and systemic adverse experiences. During this time, adverse experiences in infants who received COMVAX were generally similar in type and frequency to those observed in infants who received PedvaxHIB plus RECOMBIVAX HB

So, Merck compared its hepatitis B vaccine to a mixture of two other vaccines, because if a single vaccine is compared to a mixture of vaccines, the likelihood of adverse reactions in the “mixture of vaccine group” is likely to be higher, therefore making the hepatitis B vaccine look relatively safer. This is the kind of crap they push on you as "science".

NO double-blind studies are ever done, under the ruse of "well, it would be unethical to "deprive" infants of our vaccines, so we do studies merely comparing one vaccinated group to another. There are problems in both groups, so we can claim our vaccines do not cause greater issues!" There are no studies using an actual placebo vs. the vaccine under study. There are no studies comparing vaccinated children to non-vaccinated children in the long term.

You simply believe that might makes right; if the big money says something is right, it's right. Not always. Semmelweis is a good example. He was mocked and fired, and run out pf the medical profession because he dared insist that doctors washing their hands would reduce the infection rate, since they were in the practice of going patient to patient - even in surgeries- without doing so. His experience told him so, even though the medical authorities violently disagreed with his reasoning. He resisted the status quo and died in infamy. Guess who was right?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

When the evidence comes from the fox guarding the henhouse, then it must be scrutinized to a higher level, particularly when reams of anecdotal evidence as well as other medical sources say otherwise.

Take a look at the Merck study here: Comvax Vaccine - FDA prescribing information, side effects and uses

882 infants were assigned in a 3:1 ratio to receive either COMVAX or PedvaxHIB plus RECOMBIVAX HB at separate injection sites at 2, 4, and 12–15 months of age. Children may have also received routine pediatric immunizations. The children were monitored daily for five days after each injection for injection-site and systemic adverse experiences. During this time, adverse experiences in infants who received COMVAX were generally similar in type and frequency to those observed in infants who received PedvaxHIB plus RECOMBIVAX HB

So, Merck compared its hepatitis B vaccine to a mixture of two other vaccines, because if a single vaccine is compared to a mixture of vaccines, the likelihood of adverse reactions in the “mixture of vaccine group” is likely to be higher, therefore making the hepatitis B vaccine look relatively safer. This is the kind of crap they push on you as "science".

If you wish to challenge their methodology, I'd like to understand why you're getting the idea that "adverse reactions to the mixture group is likely to be higher" in this particular scenario?

Did you bother to research what each of these things are before just assuming they were stacking the deck?

The reason why they tested COMVAX against a combination of the two "PedVaxHib" and Recombivax is....drumroll please...COMVAX is a combination of those two that seeks to eliminate the need for taking two, by taking one that includes both.

COMVAX® [Haemophilus b Conjugate (Meningococcal Protein Conjugate) and Hepatitis B (Recombinant) Vaccine] is a sterile bivalent vaccine made of the antigenic components used in producing PedvaxHIB® [Haemophilus b Conjugate Vaccine (Meningococcal Protein Conjugate)] and RECOMBIVAX HB® [Hepatitis B Vaccine (Recombinant)].

They basically just wanted to demonstrate that taking a vaccination that's a combination of the two at the same time isn't any less safe than if one were taking the two individually.

Or, in other words
"Eating Peanut Butter and Jelly mixed together on a sandwich isn't any less safe than eating the peanut butter and jelly individually"


The did the same types of studies when they developed the antibiotic Augmentin. They compared the adverse reaction rate to that of people taking amoxicillin & clavulanate potassium in separate pills in order to demonstrate that combining the ingredients into one pill (instead of taking two separate pills) was no more or less safe.

NO double-blind studies are ever done, under the ruse of "well, it would be unethical to "deprive" infants of our vaccines, so we do studies merely comparing one vaccinated group to another. There are problems in both groups, so we can claim our vaccines do not cause greater issues!" There are no studies using an actual placebo vs. the vaccine under study. There are no studies comparing vaccinated children to non-vaccinated children in the long term.

What you're saying isn't true...

There was no placebo involved, but they directly compared vaccinated to non-vaccinated.

MMR vaccine is not linked with autism, says Danish study

The study reviewed records of 537303 children born in Denmark between January 1991 and December 1998, representing almost 100% of children born in that period. Of these children 440655 had been vaccinated. Records were retrieved from three sources: the unique identification number assigned to each child at birth; MMR vaccination data reported to the National Board of Health by general practitioners, who give all MMR vaccinations and are reimbursed for their reports; and diagnoses of autism recorded in the Danish Psychiatric Central Registry. Only specialists in child psychiatry diagnose autism and related conditions.

The study considered the children's sex, weight and gestational age at birth, and age at diagnosis of autism or of a related disorder; the socioeconomic status of the parents; and the mother's education.

The authors found that “There was no increase in the risk of autistic disorder or other autistic-spectrum disorders among vaccinated children as compared with unvaccinated children (adjusted relative risk of autistic disorder, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.24; adjusted relative risk of other autistic-spectrum disorders, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.65 to 1.07).”

In addition, the authors found no association between the development of autistic disorder and the age at vaccination, the interval since vaccination, or the calendar period at the time of vaccination.

Children were vaccinated at 15 to 17 months, and catch up vaccination was given to older children when the vaccine was introduced in 1987. Almost all children were vaccinated before the age of 3 years. The mean age at diagnosis for autism was 4 years, 3 months, and for autistic spectrum disorders 5 years, 3 months.

You simply believe that might makes right; if the big money says something is right, it's right. Not always. Semmelweis is a good example. He was mocked and fired, and run out pf the medical profession because he dared insist that doctors washing their hands would reduce the infection rate, since they were in the practice of going patient to patient - even in surgeries- without doing so. His experience told him so, even though the medical authorities violently disagreed with his reasoning. He resisted the status quo and died in infamy. Guess who was right?

No, I don't believe that...

If you recall, I provided my own example earlier of a instance where someone went against the mainstream medical community and was right. The guys who discovered that ulcers are caused by a bacteria instead of stress.

The difference being, they were able to build a reasonable hypothesis, test it, and definitively reproduce it under controlled conditions (instead of relying on conspiracy theories and anecdotes). Thus the reason Barry Marshall and Robin Warren won Nobel prizes...and Wakefield has not. If anti-vaccine (or less-vaccine) proponents could simply do the same, they could follow in their footsteps and rock the medical community and change everyone's mind.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

NO double-blind studies are ever done, under the ruse of "well, it would be unethical to "deprive" infants of our vaccines, so we do studies merely comparing one vaccinated group to another.

Ahh the old double-blind studies argument.

So what you're saying is - let's give a vaccine to one set of kids, give a placebo to another set, and watch some of the non-vaccinated kids die while ticking them off on a clipboard. Kind of unethical - don't you think?

And if you're going to claim that your big problem with vaccines is that "they're untested and giving it to kids would be a bad thing", then giving them to some children (vs others who got a placebo) is no better than giving them to all children.

 

[Newtheran]

Vaccinations are poisons. Here, lets just get the same vaccinations that our great grandparents got. Oh, wait, they did not get them at all.

Indeed, and that's why they all had such large families. Everyone needed a few spare kids around to come off the bench and work the farm or forge when the first stringers succumbed to disease.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Ahh the old double-blind studies argument.

So what you're saying is - let's give a vaccine to one set of kids, give a placebo to another set, and watch some of the non-vaccinated kids die while ticking them off on a clipboard. Kind of unethical - don't you think?

And if you're going to claim that your big problem with vaccines is that "they're untested and giving it to kids would be a bad thing", then giving them to some children (vs others who got a placebo) is no better than giving them to all children.

Not to mention, Denmark already conducted a massive test, involving half a million kids over a period years where they compared the vaccinated to the non-vaccinated.

Calling for a double-blind study is, at best, calling for a stall-tactic by asking for something that's basically already been tested.

If they really cared to see the results of vaxx v. no vaxx, the Denmark study is widely available for anyone to read.

Of course, the first rebuttal is usually some "Big Pharma rigged it" conspiracy, which, no doubt, they'd make the exact claim even if they got their double-blind study wish granted and it undoubtedly came back with results that didn't match what they want to believe.

 

[Newtheran]

Evidence-based thinking and a hard commitment to rationality have been perhaps taken for granted. We have laughed dismissively at the flat earthers. And they deserve it. But the Trump election shows that many people are driven by emotion and tribal allegiance, not clear thinking. We need to figure this out. One thing is for sure: arguing the facts simply does not work, we need to do other things as well.

Look, let's not go conflating the election of Donald Trump with anti-vaccine dogma. It's perfectly legitimate to elect a candidate who is going to defend a country's borders, language, culture, and economic interests. This is a discussion about vaccines, let's stay on topic.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Of course, the first rebuttal is usually some "Big Pharma rigged it" conspiracy, which, no doubt, they'd make the exact claim even if they got their double-blind study wish granted and it undoubtedly came back with results that didn't match what they want to believe.

Of course. That's why the call for "double-blind studies" is completely disingenuous. Because if you believe that the world's doctors, scientists, pharma companies and hospitals are all part of a giant conspiracy to force medication on people, there's absolutely zero chance you'd believe the results of any study.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

You simply believe that might makes right; if the big money says something is right, it's right. Not always. Semmelweis is a good example. He was mocked and fired, and run out pf the medical profession because he dared insist that doctors washing their hands would reduce the infection rate, since they were in the practice of going patient to patient - even in surgeries- without doing so. His experience told him so, even though the medical authorities violently disagreed with his reasoning. He resisted the status quo and died in infamy. Guess who was right?

As I've said before, I (and probably many anti-vaxxers), long ago decided it was more important to be right, than be popular. If one can learn anything from history, a good lesson is that the majority are usually wrong.

These pro-vaxxers remind me of the lady of the dead child before Solomon. Her own child had died, and she was quite happy to have the other lady's child killed. With many of these pro-vaxxers, I get the impression that they've presented their own kids upon the altar of vaccination, and they want the rest of us to offer up ours to their foreign gods, also. Not going to happen, but it does make me smile how they think that all the healthy unvaccinated kids are due to all the sick/er kids of parents who vaccinate! Lol.

(Note: No offense intended to parents who do vaccinate after intelligently researching the facts, and who don't try to push their beliefs/opinions onto others).

 

[ThatRobGuy]

As I've said before, I (and probably many anti-vaxxers), long ago decided it was more important to be right, than be popular. If one can learn anything from history, a good lesson is that the majority are usually wrong.

...and yet you haven't been able to provide one shred of evidence to support your position that hasn't been easily refuted with little to no effort on our part.

These pro-vaxxers remind me of the lady of the dead child before Solomon. Her own child had died, and she was quite happy to have the other lady's child killed. With many of these pro-vaxxers, I get the impression that they've presented their own kids upon the altar of vaccination, and they want the rest of us to offer up ours to their foreign gods, also. Not going to happen, but it does make me smile how they think that all the healthy unvaccinated kids are due to all the sick/er kids of parents who vaccinate! Lol.

Your condescending "lol"'s don't validate your position, nor do your allegorical stories from whatever book you choose to believe in.

For the record herd immunity is a very real thing and is the reason why non-vaccinated kids often don't contract the diseases.

(Note: No offense intended to parents who do vaccinate after intelligently researching the facts, and who don't try to push their beliefs/opinions onto others).

It's a matter of health, it's not "pushing your beliefs onto others"

As much as some parents don't want to hear this, the "Parents are the ones who know what's best for their own children, not doctors and scientists" simply isn't true.

That mentality treats children as if they're property instead of people, and usually ends in scenarios like this:
Toddler died of meningitis 'after his parents tried to treat him with fruit'

And just for clarification, after looking at a mountain of evidence, peer reviewed research and well constructed reports and studies on one side, and then looking at alt-medicine blogs and anecdotes on the other side, if you conclude that the latter is the more reliable side, then sorry, you didn't "intelligently research the facts", you cherry picked dubious sources that said what you wanted to hear.

 

[Sam91]

You are using propaganda terms (anti-vaxxers here) and it muddies your argument. It's the same as calling people who consider abortions a decision made between the doctor and his patient "baby-killers". Or calling those who think that God ordained and established the meaning of marriage as "homophobes". Or those who believe the 2nd Amendment protects the right to bear arms as gun-toting (add more perjoratives) instead of people who believe the Founding Fathers intended to protect people from an encroaching government (their position).

For example, if you are pro-life and wish to seriously engage with people who are pro-choice, you need to use their term, and not call them "baby-killers" or "pro-death".

Here, similarly if you want to engage with people who have legitimate concerns about the safety of the vaccine schedule, you need to refer to them appropriately.

Most are actually really not "anti-vaccine" at all. There are a few, of course, but many, many people are merely simply selective vaccine proponents, or spaced vaccine proponents, choosing to space them out and not abide by the demanded schedule, cramming them all in. They believe it is safer, and that is ok. Labeling them all "anti-vaxxers" is inaccurate and pejorative.

I am not an anti-vaxxer. I even specified to avoid the spite that my children were vaccinated, but was met with an unreasonable attitude from people on this thread. People are blinded to assume that all concerns about vaccines relate to autism. A lot seem think that any open mindedness to the fact that vaccines aren't risk free makes one stupid.

I'm unwilling to talk more about vaccinations when the dialogue is not dialogue but quashing opinions without reading them properly.

 

[mama2one]

I was the only person in my family who didn’t get a flu shot last year. Was also the only one who didn’t get the flu. In fact the whole town was sick, but I never got the flu..

always on the fence about the flu shot
recently, on our news, they said 80,000 people died from the flu last year

we did get our child the flu mist a couple years only to find out that it was basically worthless
we haven't had our child vaccinated with the flu shot; think they stopped the mist

admit was worried last yr as child's teacher and some kids in her classroom got the flu including a child who sat next to her in class

but she stayed well and didn't miss even one day of school last yr
I've never gotten the flu shot but husband does thru work since he travels

 

[USincognito]

Del

 

[Go Braves]

always on the fence about the flu shot
recently, on our news, they said 80,000 people died from the flu last year

we did get our child the flu mist a couple years only to find out that it was basically worthless
we haven't had our child vaccinated with the flu shot; think they stopped the mist

admit was worried last yr as child's teacher and some kids in her classroom got the flu including a child who sat next to her in class

but she stayed well and didn't miss even one day of school last yr
I've never gotten the flu shot but husband does thru work since he travels

A teenage gal friends at my church were friends with died from the flu. She hadn't gotten the shot. She'd been healthy beforehand.

Somebody was just talking about how the mom of the Parkland shooter died of the flu a couple of months before the shooting. Now of course not saying that the flu is at fault for what happened but it makes you think about whether that contributed to his mental state.

My mom always managed to get us to not get too fussy about the shot by promising us Chucky Cheese afterwards, lol. At work we were given rice crispy treats after getting the shot, lol.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I am not an anti-vaxxer. I even specified to avoid the spite that my children were vaccinated, but was met with an unreasonable attitude from people on this thread. People are blinded to assume that all concerns about vaccines relate to autism. A lot seem think that any open mindedness to the fact that vaccines aren't risk free makes one stupid.

I'm unwilling to talk more about vaccinations when the dialogue is not dialogue but quashing opinions without reading them properly.

That's the political tactic today, promoted by some elements (antifa, for example). Silence others by any means possible. Use pre-scripted talking points, and demeaning imaginary labels (homophobe comes to mind, for example....who on earth is afraid of gay people? That would be...pretty much nobody. No one quakes in fear at the sight of a gay person (assuming you can even tell who they are) the way some might at say, the sight of a rabid racoon or pit bull or or something actually scary.

Here, the tactic by a few on this train....lump everyone who isn't lining up to get the latest vaccine into some "anti-vaxxer" group (regardless of their actual status, which could be having completed a few, some, or nearly all vaccines) and then call for their indoctrination or exclusion or even imprisonment (as some have done in the media). Some call for violation of the bodily integrity of others by any means possible. This is scary in its implications.

Some rationality would be nice. I know I'm dreaming, in this political environment.