That is the part I object to. You are assuming what a person you have not debated with will conclude, without the discussion, based on how other people decided. You have the right to do that to save yourself time. And you don't have to discuss with people at all on the subject. But if your goal is to convince people then you ought to be willing to give the information each time when dealing with a new person. You presented it 100's of times to someone else, not to that person.
That is why my suggestion is that doctors, or any entity that distributes vaccines should have a resource they can give to anyone who inquires that lists known levels of health harms from the disease and the vaccine. Then no one has to go to the internet to find out. I can still decide it is logical to take a vaccine, despite knowing there are settled cases in the vaccine injury court, because I can look at the rate and realize the risk is acceptable for the reward.
I've yet to encounter anyone in the anti-vaccine/"vaccines cause autism" that's ever responded to any sort of study, data, etc...
In every case, without exception, it's always followed the pattern of escalation I outlined earlier.
In many ways, it's like arguing against a conspiracy theorist of any other flavor (9/11 conspiracies, chem-trails, moon landing truthers, etc...)
They use any evidence against the conspiracy, as further evidence of the conspiracy.
IE: "Look at all of the studies by all of these highly rated sources that shows XYZ" gets the response of "See, that shows you just how high up the conspiracy goes!"
Basically, what's covered in this video
Yes, but it can also be spelled out there are various levels of vaccine harm reporting. There is the initial database which lists all complaints, whenever reported, without requiring a lot of investigation. Then there are filed cases for vaccine injury. Some of those may be immediately settled because the cost is not worth it to litigate, or because it is a known harm that they think likely occurred. And then there are adjudicated cases that look at all the evidence.
There are, but most of those are taken out of context as well.
For instance, the one that everyone in that camp likes to cite, is the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).
They used the fact that there were millions of dollars in payouts as evidence that "see, the courts wouldn't have awarded them that money if there was no evidence that the vaccines caused the ailments!"
However, they stop reading after the first paragraph, and don't get to the part where the presiding judiciary members over the matter went on to say:
I am well aware, of course, that during the years since the test cases were decided, in the cases involving vaccinees suffering from ASDs, Vaccine Act compensation was granted.
But in none of those cases did the Respondent concede, nor did a special master find, that there was any “causation-in-fact” connection between a vaccination and the vaccinee’s ASD. Instead, in those cases it was conceded or found that the vaccinee displayed the symptoms of a Table Injury within the Table time frame after vaccination.
In Poling v. HHS, the presiding special master clarified that the family was compensated because the Respondent conceded that the Poling child had suffered a Table Injury–not because the Respondent or the special master had concluded that any vaccination had contributed to causing or aggravating the child’s ASD.
The compensation of these cases, thus does not afford any support to the notion that vaccinations can contribute to the causation of autism. In setting up the Vaccine Act compensation system, Congress forthrightly acknowledged that the Table Injury presumptions would result in compensation for injuries that were not, in fact, truly vaccine-caused.
Or in plain terms, both congress and the court acknowledged that the law was rather poorly written and vaguely worded, and would result in compensation for things that weren't actually caused by the vaccine.
Basically, congress set up a table of potential vaccine effects, and if any child developed any of those things post-vaccination, they'd be eligible to pursue compensation without actually proving that the vaccine was the cause.
And that table included a myriad of things, that any child could develop, at any time, with or without vaccinations.
For instance, things like allergic reactions, fevers, etc...
Most kids have fevers at some point...the fact that one happens to occur 10 days after a vaccination doesn't prove that the vaccine caused it. Kids get fevers sometimes...that's just life.
With or without vaccination, the rate of ASD is approximately 16 per 1,000. (with varying degrees of severity)