I know the science in the article is wrong. But if you actually read the article, it isn't really about the science, it's about the CDC hiding data from the public. And this has not been challenged, in fact the CDC admits it.

So I ask again, how are you supposed to make an educated decision based on facts, when the CDC admits that they have no qualms about hiding the facts from you.

I think you said it yourself. You've seen a ton of evidence that the vaccines are safe (and presumably very little evidence otherwise). If you believe they are credible sources then you should make your decision based on the available evidence, not some worry that the CDC has other evidence that they are hiding from you.

Do you have evidence that the CDC is hiding data from the public in this case?

As I said yesterday, the behavior of individuals within organizations is largely the result of systemic forces. This much we know from psychology, sociology, and organizational behavior. (C.f. the Milgram experiments, the Asch conformity tests, the Stanford prison experiment, etc.)

Clearly different cases are different, but making a completely new decision based on each new case shows a misunderstanding of human behavior; as long as our systemic environments are the same, we will tend to produce the same sorts of behaviors.

So the burden of proof shouldn't be on me here to prove the CDC is covering up information, the burden of proof should be on them to show that they've changed the systemic structure of their organization since 2000 in a way that promotes transparency and accountability. And I haven't seen any evidence of this.

I'm not saying these vaccines are necessarily dangerous, they're probably not. All I'm suggesting is that if you try to interpret history and make decisions without using the lenses of sociology, psych, and OB then you're bound to find yourself over in Iraq looking for WMDs, boycotting France, putting poisons into your body, etc.

You could have just said "no," instead of flailing your hands around.

"I know the science in the article is wrong."

And that's when I stop paying attention.

There's a good chance the errors in the original article were introduced by amateurs trying to redo the science after the CDC covered up the original data. Which is sort of my whole point.