Sometimes it’s a little frustrating being on the side of science.
You have to be accurate.
You have to be able to defend what you say with evidence.
You have to account for uncertainty, limitations, confounders, error bars, confidence intervals, and the possibility that tomorrow’s evidence might refine today’s conclusion.
Meanwhile, the anti-science crowd can apparently wake up, stretch, and declare absolutely anything with complete confidence.
Scientists usually don’t talk that way. There’s almost always a qualification somewhere. An asterisk. A “based on the available evidence.” A “within the limits of this study.” A “very unlikely” instead of “impossible.”
Absolute statements are rare in science.
So it’s kind of refreshing when we get one.
You cannot get influenza from the flu shot.
Full stop.
The injected flu vaccines contain inactivated virus, purified viral components, or recombinant influenza proteins.
None contains replication-competent influenza virus capable of establishing an influenza infection in you.
You might get a sore arm. You might feel achy, tired, or mildly feverish for a day or two while your immune system responds.
You might coincidentally catch another respiratory virus around the same time.
You could even have been infected with influenza shortly before vaccination or during the roughly two weeks it takes protection to develop.
And because flu shots aren’t 100% effective, a vaccinated person can still occasionally get influenza later.
But none of those things means the shot gave them the flu.
It didn’t.
Sometimes science really does let us put the period at the end of the sentence.
You cannot get influenza from the flu shot.
I'm increasingly struggling to see the meaningful difference between Flat Earth and anti-vax.
Flat Earth gets widely mocked because the evidence against it is overwhelming, publicly available, independently verifiable, and has been explained to them approximately 400 million times. And yet they keep going. Same memes, same arguments, same misunderstandings, same cherry-picked clips, same "experts," same refusal to acknowledge counterexamples, same ability to watch a claim get demolished and then post it again three days later as if nothing happened.
Sound familiar? That's almost exactly how anti-vax misinformation operates.
The evidence is sitting right there: clinical trials, surveillance data, epidemiology, pharmacology, immunology, pathology, national datasets, independent studies from different countries, institutions, political systems, journals, and research groups. You can patiently explain it. Show them the paper. Quote the relevant paragraph. Graph the data. Demonstrate that the meme cropped out half the figure. Show that the "study" was retracted, the way Wakefield's 1998 Lancet paper linking MMR to autism was retracted after the GMC found data manipulation and undisclosed conflicts. Show that their favorite guru misrepresented the result. Provide the denominator they conveniently omitted. Show them the prediction their side made five years ago that spectacularly failed.
And tomorrow? Same meme, same claim, same guy flooding the comments under another science post.
It's the same epistemic model as Flat Earth: the conclusion is protected, and everything else has to bend around it. Evidence supporting the belief is accepted instantly. Evidence contradicting it is "corrupt," "bought," "censored," "fake," or simply ignored. Their authorities can be caught being wrong repeatedly without losing authority, because the belief was never really built from the evidence in the first place.
Want engagement on X? Post a basic scientific fact. You'll summon the anti-science crowd like ringing a dinner bell.
The real difference is scale and consequence. There are a lot more anti-vaxxers, and vaccine misinformation can influence decisions involving real diseases, real children, real outbreaks, and real lives.
So yes, I'll laugh at Flat Earth. At this point I almost prefer it. Its nonsense mostly gives us entertainment. The anti-vax version runs the same circus act, except people can actually get hurt.
@Heccles94 Unions are political and only care where the wages are high.
What is better is boycotting if enough people don't agree. Another one is trade deals which the left seems to love when it comes to Europe.
A black man was publicly lynched in this country and you are yet to address the question of our racist media
Leveson 2
And yeah - great about helping farmers. But perhaps read the room this time.