@WTBDavidG There was even a case in the US conceded by gov experts & $millions paid out for case linking autism. Evidence was court sealed >
-
-
Replying to @C7RKY
@WTBDavidG at the request of gov. I thought science demanded transparency? That's what makes it science, no? So now I'm left trying to make>1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY
@WTBDavidG a judgement call based upon flawed anecdotal material, or flawed scientific material? All I know is measels kills 1:5000, but >1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY
@WTBDavidG you have to catch it first - whatever those odds are. That's a slim chance. I then have to weigh that against the slim chance >1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY
@WTBDavidG the vaccine may cause a life changing (for EVERYONE) injury.But there's guaranteed exposure to the vaccine this way. It's a >1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY
@WTBDavidG question of relative risks for me, whichever way I turn. The disease, or the vaccine. But I find the suggestion that those who >1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY
@WTBDavidG wish to retain the right to decide against vaccination would 'rather have dead children' to be utterly offensive. This position >2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WTBDavidG
@WTBDavidG Choosing 'that risk' is a LONG way removed from choosing 'dead children'. The comment is far from valid as a direct result.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@WTBDavidG Sorry, but that's just wrong. They assume the consequence of not vaccinating is death, when that's simply not at all reasonable.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.