Pants-of-dog wrote:How is it equivocation to say that something can be studied some more and simultaneously say that the studies already done are properly done?
First off that's not what you said so what you're doing here is equivocating on an equivocation. You said since science is "contingent"(whatever the hell that means) anything can always be studied more so there's no such thing as thoroughly studied. That's just retarded. Thorough means sufficient, not complete. Something is thoroughly studied when all reasonable methods and tests available to science have been applied to it. This is not the case with vaccines, they haven't been thoroughly studied, they haven't been subjected to a reasonable or sufficient level of scrutiny and the studies that have been conducted were not properly done in that their conclusions are not justified by their data.
The claim that vaccines are safe and effective is almost entirely based on epidemiology and here's what the book on epidemiology has to to say about the reliability of epidemiology:
Controlling for unknown co-causal factors, genetic susceptibility or mutli-step causation is outside the scope of current biostatistical practice. Teasing out the effect of confounding variables is fraught with difficulty and lends to error.
See DONA SCHNEIDER AND DAVID E. LILIENFELD, LILIENFELD’S FOUNDATIONS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, Oxford University Press 4th
Edn. (2015) at 63-68.
Bab·bitt | \ˈba-bət
A narrow-minded, self-satisfied conformist with an unthinking deference to official orthodoxy and institutional authority.