A is for Antivaxxer
Anti-vaxxer is becoming a self-describing term more comfortably adopted by critical thinkers who saw the light since the COVID19 pandemic fiasco. Dr Sam Bailey, who had her medical license stripped for her views, speaks on the issue.
The term “antivax” has existed almost as long as vaccination itself. It is sometimes traced to correspondence by Edward Jenner in the early nineteenth century, reflecting early resistance to vaccination practices. Today, the word is often used critically to describe people who question vaccines or public-health policies.
Watch Sam Bailey below:
Recent controversies have highlighted how polarizing vaccine discussions remain. For example, media coverage in outlets such as the Daily Mail reported on disciplinary action taken against physician Anne McCloskey after she made public statements questioning pandemic policy and vaccination campaigns. Supporters argued her comments represented legitimate skepticism, while regulators maintained that such claims could undermine public trust in medicine.
Debates about vaccines often extend beyond current events into history and scientific interpretation. Critics sometimes point to statistical modeling studies—such as research associated with Imperial College London—as examples of how public-health conclusions may rely on projections rather than direct measurement. Others question whether improvements in public health over the last century can be attributed primarily to vaccination, citing works like Dissolving Illusions, which argue that sanitation, nutrition, and living conditions played larger roles.
Mainstream medical institutions, including agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, continue to describe vaccination as one of the most significant public-health achievements in modern history. However, critics argue that medical education and pharmaceutical influence limit open debate about vaccine safety, effectiveness, and the foundations of germ theory.
The COVID-19 pandemic intensified these disagreements, prompting some people to reassess their views on public health, scientific authority, and medical risk. As a result, vaccine discussions increasingly reflect broader questions about trust in institutions, interpretation of scientific evidence, and individual responsibility for health decisions.
Ultimately, the controversy illustrates how scientific, historical, and social perspectives intersect in public-health debates—often producing sharply different conclusions about the same evidence.
source www.youtube.com
Tom
| #
Vaccines are something I have never considered for over 50 years. They serve no useful purpose.
Reply