Ah, yes. This is why I laugh when a member of @AAPSonline claims that the organization is not antivax. One wonders if the complain as loudly about government attempts to limit what doctors can say to patients and study about gun violence.https://twitter.com/jorient/status/1106278606592892928 …
It depends on the vaccine, the disease, and the circumstances. Rigid adherence to protocols from conflicted authorities, while ignoring adverse reports, is anti-patient and contrary to the Oath of Hippocrates
-
-
OK, I'll bite. Which vaccines on the CDC's recommended childhood vaccine schedule do you personally consider safe and effective? Be specific and justify your answers.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Conflicted authorities?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Completely ignoring the vast amount of evidence contradicting your beliefs on vaccines is anti-patient and contrary to the Oath of Hippocrates. Spreading this misinformation to the public, who is trusting someone with "M.D." in their Twitter handle, is even more dangerous.
-
In reference to another tweet you had, yes, being skeptical and hesitant to change practice over new theories that lack sufficient evidence is important. Refusing to change your personal beliefs and practices despite immense evidence is irresponsible and dangerous.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So you think some vaccines are good. How would you argue against someone who felt all vaccines were bad all the time. Would you appeal to evidence and the scientific consensus?
-
Vaccines and drugs, though "good" in some circumstances, all have risks. Why not try to figure out why and to whom bad reactions occur instead of denying them?
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.


