Vaxxers on the left vs right

I’ve heard that ley-lines and empowered crystals and Feng Shui all cause autism.


This conversation has strayed pretty far from banned words. Or are we having an argument at this point over the effectiveness of the CDC? I’m reticent to wade back through all the bickering about anti-vax political alignment.


Well, I was going to link you to the CDC, but that link is gone (thanks, Trump!). There’s this, coupled with this.

By the way, as you claim to have been lurking here for more than a few days, you will know that repeatedly asking people to provide citations for their assertions, without providing any for your own, is not a beloved form of interaction image


Letting lie, per your wishes, but I do get a notification when you retro-edit comments.


Not a study but a pretty accurate look at the Marin County outbreak. The lowest vaccination rates in CA were typically in affluent liberal enclaves like Marin or Santa Monica. we also have the right wing types but there aren’t nearly as many of them in the state. Thankfully the legislature revoked the personal belief exemption for public schools and vax rates have shot up.


Appears that can depend on the color of your glasses, and how offended one pre-emptively is!

from your link:

    The face of stupidity


I agree, and I bet the Trump administration will never read through these enough to call for any censoring anyway. This admin operate straight out of Lazy Corporate Management 101. Make the reports thick enough, and stack them on White House desks daily. They’ll never be cracked.

1 Like

Everyone needs to calm down. Sure, the CDC has been banned from using a few words, but they have also been authorized to use some others:
Pocahontas, liddle, crooked, covfefe, yuge and pussy. As a bonus they can also now use phrases: Believe me, fake news and no puppet.

Seems like a win/win?


Yeah, but that wouldn’t have been a thing without the right-wing British tabloid press.


that much is obvious


What people are fussing about here is not “science”, but rather consensus, which crops up in the institutions of science but is a political angle. The scientific answer is always “then go do your own research”, rather than “you need to believe me”. An evidence-based society has no need for consensus.

Unfortunately, people rhetorically use appeals to “science” as an institution rather than a methodology just as often for anti-evidence as pro-evidence reasons. Science is about what is, and says nothing (nor should it) about what people should do, or be made to do. This suggests that decontextualized facts can be acted upon in a cultural vacuum, separate from what our goals and/or values might be.

For example, I might agree that vaccinations work, but disagree as to whether or not it matters if I or others succumb to some pathogen and die. There is certainly an argument to be made that that would be natural and not an unusual occurrence. But what many gloss over is that arguing to the contrary is not a factual, value-neutral position. That too would be an appeal to personal and cultural values, not any kind of empirical metrics. This is the crucial distinction that pro-evidence people seem to regularly miss.

I am trying to merely point that out as a matter of lefty strategy. Don’t shoot the messenger.

ETA: Speaking of being decontextualized, my post was moved here from a different topic. THIS is the post I was replying to:

I’ve been in the (anti-) anti-vax wars for over 25 years.

Anti-vaxx truly has no left or right. By all means, don’t take my word for it. Go check out more prominent jab warriors such as Dr. David Gorski (Science-Based Medicine) for instance.


oh I’m sure. My point was more that the flavor of antivaxer is going to depend on location.

I suspect that in this case it is if only because this administration is not going to bother much with left-antivaxx desires.

Science doesn’t know jack shit. Just ask any scientist. They’ll tell you they aren’t certain of anything. Now, religions. They know their shit. Ask any religious person and he’ll rattle off a long list of things he’s 100% certain of.

I’m here to tell you, “Religion based medicide” is the ticket.


As noted elsewhere, they’re not big on verbs. So “based on scientific evldence” should fly through the filters. “Fetus” is a bit trickier but “prenatal greater than — weeks gestation” might work. Since “Trans” is a term used freaking EVERY where in medicine (e.g. " trans cranial" good luck banning it.

1 Like

Just use cover pages with pretty pictures. Start the bad words on page two. He’ll never know.


Edit: This post belonged back in the other thread and isn’t relevant to this one. So, removed.

Note that I was talking about vaccines, not general trust in science.