Ifreann wrote:Andrew Wakefield made children undergo colonoscopies and spinal taps without telling their parents the risks of those procedures for what he knew to be no reason beyond lining his own pockets. And then he lied about the results of those examinations anyway. He's an utterly corrupt piece of shit. No one dismisses him as "going against the experts".
Put aside Wakefield as an individual. Of course he, as an individual, is a scumbag.
But this has no bearing on whether or not he could have happened to be right by accident. Probably wasn't, but I can't blame people for thinking that's less of a case around what he has to say than that the other side sometimes comes across as avoiding the debate.
This is only one of many reasons why which experts to listen to, on what, and why or why not, should be as fair game for debate as everything else.
Ifreann wrote:I'm not suggesting anyone do anything, expect perhaps that you stop credulously believing the likes of Maher when they act like there is some question about a link between vaccines and Autism.
Don't put words in my mouth. My claim isn't that the case for such a link is strong, or that the case against it is weak. My claim is that the number of people who believe anti-vax rhetoric in the first place is the fault of the other side of this debate for how they handled it.
Ifreann wrote:I don't care what kind of audience he attracts. Why would I? I'm not looking to advertise on his show.
Of course not. But you should know what sort of approach appeals to millions of people at a time.