Nine Questions, Nine Answers.
If you spend more than a few minutes discussing vaccines and the mythical link between vaccines and autism or merely just the safety and effectiveness of vaccines in general, Lowell Hubbs will soon cut and paste the "9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims.” by David Mihalovic diatribe time and time again.
Even though each of those nine questions has been thoroughly addressed and more holes shot through them that can be found in the average screen door, Mr. Hubbs continues to re-paste his nine questions garbage while refusing to acknowledge the responses because like most anti-vaxers, Mr. Hubbs isn't capable of actually interpreting scientific responses or statements based in fact. Instead, the only thing Mr. Hubbs can do is cut and paste information from anti-vaxer websites, and since they don't publish the responses to these nine questions, Mr. Hubbs is left with nothing else to say about the matter.
Because of this, I felt it was only fitting that I supply a well written scientifically supported response to each of these nine questions - all in one place - which ends the debate once and for all. This response was written by a REAL medical doctor with over 30 years of experience and research and it was reviewed by several other REAL doctors as well.
The funny thing is, even though Dr. Crislip addressed every one of those nine questions, Mr. Mihalovic was never able to respond even though these answers were shared with him and his fellow anti-vaxer friends. The only response they could come up with is that they would like to debate the issue on an Internet netcam with two people representing each side, but responding with a request for an open debate is an old trick and serves no legitimate purpose. Holding such a debate would suggest scientific fact is open to debate in the first place - rest assured it is not. Scientific fact is scientific fact like it or not, and no amount of clever trickery is going to dodge that very central point.
As Dr. David Gorski so accurately stated in reference to the idea of debating a scientific issue with an anti-vaxer or other person with a non-scientific and unsupportable viewpoint: "[t]here have to be two scientifically supportable positions. The anti-vaccine position is not scientifically supportable."
I urge anyone with an interest in the subject of vaccinations to read Dr. Crislip's original post, the comments in response to it, as well as the follow-up post by Dr. Gorski which displays the typical avoidance tactics used by the anti-vaxers when real science is presented to them.
It is a long read, but without question it puts to bed this entire "nine questions" silliness once and for all. I guess Mr. Hubbs will need to find something else to cut and paste immediately before he (inaccurately) claims victory.