> So I ask you for a third time - "If I refused to take those vaccines for safety reasons when the FDA first approved them, would I be anti-science?"
A stopped clock is right twice a day.
This is the sort of logic people use against, say, wearing a seatbelt. "My cousin's roommate's friend's hairdresser would've died in a freak accident if they'd buckled theirs!" Is that true? Perhaps! Is it a good way of making decisions? No.
You can make what, in hindsight, is the correct call for the wrong reasons. (And in these cases, it's usually "we thought the risk/reward balance was 1.05 and not 0.95" sort of things.)
A stopped clock is right twice a day.
This is the sort of logic people use against, say, wearing a seatbelt. "My cousin's roommate's friend's hairdresser would've died in a freak accident if they'd buckled theirs!" Is that true? Perhaps! Is it a good way of making decisions? No.
You can make what, in hindsight, is the correct call for the wrong reasons. (And in these cases, it's usually "we thought the risk/reward balance was 1.05 and not 0.95" sort of things.)