it's a wonder you aren't hiding under your bed. — James Riley

There’s a particular saying that should immediately enter your mind on reading this back.

You, who know nothing about virology, immunology or epidemiology would say "unnecesarily"? On the basis of anecdotes that may or may not be accurate? Are you serious? — Janus

I wouldn’t pull a rather gruesome trigger on a set of people simply because others were upset about me not doing so, no.

If vaccinating the world provides no special benefit that healthy immune systems and taking care when sick do not, then even a small number of deaths and terrible health conditions among the young and healthy should not be accepted in trade. The JCVI essentially made this judgement recently regarding the universal vaccination of 12-15 year olds.

Not even close. On most issues in the real world — ones that haven’t been politicized— we allow the possibility of being wrong, since our identities don’t hinge on it. — Xtrix

I’m quite certain that you’ve hinged your identity on this issue because you argue about it poorly.

Because there's no evidence to support that claim whatsoever. So not only "tenuous," but an outright delusion. — Xtrix

This just isn’t true: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-58330796.amp

So you'll now retract that ridiculous claim, I assume? — Xtrix

I don’t need to retract: https://m.jpost.com/health-science/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-linked-to-rare-blood-disease-israeli-study-671694

Vaccines are very effective against COVID. The fact that people "still get ill" does not detract from this statement. Nor do booster shots. — Xtrix

It does detract from that statement, because people still get ill despite being vaccinated and need further shots for the vaccination to work adequately.

When breakthroughs do happen, they're much milder. — Xtrix

The infection is already likely to be mild or asymptomatic in young healthy people with normal immune systems.

It's not debatable -- again, it's a matter of fact. 173 million people have been vaccinated. How many deaths? — Xtrix

In the UK is was 1,440 by the end of June: https://rightsfreedoms.wordpress.com/2021/07/15/fact-deaths-due-to-the-covid-vaccines-in-the-uk-after-6-months-are-407-higher-than-deaths-due-to-all-other-vaccines-combined-in-the-past-11-years/

"Even when the size of the viral loads are similar, the virus behaves differently in the noses and throats of the vaccinated and the unvaccinated." — Xtrix

Where is this from?

There’s a particular saying that should immediately enter your mind on reading this back. — AJJ

I know you would think that, but that's because you only think of yourself. Like I said, you are disrespectful, inconsiderate and selfish. I didn't vax for me. You stand corrected.

Because there's no evidence to support that claim whatsoever. So not only "tenuous," but an outright delusion.
— Xtrix

This just isn’t true: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-58330796.amp — AJJ

:lol:

As I said, I'm sure you can find freak cases -- which is all this is. It's also inconclusive and, as stated in the article, "very rare."

Again, if this is what you mean by "death and debilitation," you can find it with any vaccine. It's complete delusion.

So you'll now retract that ridiculous claim, I assume?
— Xtrix

I don’t need to retract: https://m.jpost.com/health-science/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-linked-to-rare-blood-disease-israeli-study-671694 — AJJ

"A spokesperson from the hospital stressed that this study, which was very small, should in no way deter people from vaccinating and encouraged anyone who has not yet been inoculated to get the jab."

So this is "death and debilitation"? An inconclusive, small study from Israel where they outright say that it shouldn't deter people from getting the vaccine and, again, an example you can give with any vaccine whatsoever? It's as if you want there to be a reason for deterring vaccinations...hmmm....

I'd ask why you're desperately searching for reasons to make ridiculous claims about the vaccines, but we already know the answer: you're an anti-vaxxer. Have the courage to come out and say it.

It does detract from that statement, because people still get ill despite being vaccinated and need further shots for the vaccination to work adequately. — AJJ

It does not detract from the statement. Vaccines are highly effective against COVID -- period. Breakthrough cases happen, yes. They're about 1 in 5,000 or 10,000. If that's not effective, then "effective" has no meaning.

It's not debatable -- again, it's a matter of fact. 173 million people have been vaccinated. How many deaths?
— Xtrix

In the UK is was 1,440 by the end of June: https://rightsfreedoms.wordpress.com/2021/07/15/fact-deaths-due-to-the-covid-vaccines-in-the-uk-after-6-months-are-407-higher-than-deaths-due-to-all-other-vaccines-combined-in-the-past-11-years/ — AJJ

You cite "Rights and Freedoms," which is not credible. But even if it were 1,440 deaths -- which it isn't -- what's that percentage? 92 million doses given in the UK so far. You do the math.

There is no "death and debilitation" from the vaccines, and no evidence whatsoever supporting such a claim. They're highly effective and safe, and help slow the spread, which is why health experts are pushing for them to be taken.

Sorry this doesn't fit your anti-vaxxer narrative, but it's true. Anecdotes, inconclusive studies, and freak cases, while fun to talk about, tell us nothing about the vaccines -- even if we take them seriously.

As I said, I'm sure you can find freak cases — Xtrix

You said there was no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that death and debilitation are occurring among healthy vaccinated people. This isn’t true.

So this is "death and debilitation"? — Xtrix

People getting and dying from blood clots is, yes. So is Guillain-Barré syndrome, heart inflammation and eye disorders.

There is no "death and debilitation" from the vaccines, and no evidence whatsoever supporting such a claim. — Xtrix

This is why I say you’re arguing about this poorly (I expect you do about everything). I’ve given examples and statistics to support what I say, you arbitrarily dismiss them and beg the question. The vast majority of people:

1. Say things
2. Become upset when asked to support what they say
3. Beg the question
4. And ultimately pretend that no argument against their position has been made

They do this because they can’t think. This whole affair is a consequence of so many people being this way.

You said there was no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that death and debilitation are occurring among healthy vaccinated people. This isn’t true. — AJJ

It is true. There is no evidence whatsoever.

That could turn out to be wrong. If evidence is presented that shows this, fine -- then they're freak cases which occur in any vaccine whatsoever. No different than someone dying of toothpaste. It would still make the claim of "death and debilitation" completely delusional.

If you seriously want to play the game of "Well even ONE death proves it" -- then, I repeat: ANYTHING we do or use can be argued to lead to "death and debilitation." But it's a stupid argument.

And ultimately pretend that no argument against their position has been made — AJJ

You've made an argument, and a ridiculous one. You've cited evidence which is inconclusive and non-credible. But even granting we take your "evidence" seriously, it still proves exactly nothing about the vaccines. It would be, again, like saying that people have died of the polio vaccine. Even if that's true, it proves exactly nothing about whether one should get a polio vaccine.

The studies you cited, which you ignored, also make it very clear that they should NOT be used to sway people not to take the vaccines. Interesting you leave that out, as it undermines your entire argument. Ask yourself why your own sources are stressing that and get back to me.

They do this because they can’t think. — AJJ

It's very clear who isn't "thinking" here: you, the anti-vaxxer. Again, take it up with the CDC and WHO. Keep fighting the good fight to promote misinformation and dissuade people from being vaccinated -- your ignorance is getting people killed worldwide. It's dangerous, and the only normal response should be embarrassment and retraction.

Again -- not holding my breath.

It's dangerous, and the only normal response should be embarrassment and retraction.

Again -- not holding my breath. — Xtrix

:100:

I point out that you’re arbitrarily dismissing the examples and statistics I linked to and begging question. Your response is to do the same thing again. You can’t see it; hardly anyone can.

You've cited evidence which is inconclusive and non-credible. — Xtrix

I expect you’d say that about any evidence. A coroner rules that woman has died from a vaccine induced blood clot. A number of countries suspended the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine over blood clot fears. A study links the Pfizer vaccine to blood clots also. Many reports have been made of deaths and health conditions following a vaccine dose. You yourself make an example of the will on your side to dismiss or downplay these occurrences.

You say my ignorance is getting people killed. Would it surprise you to learn that I think the same of you (and with better cause, considering the caliber of your argument)?

I point out that you’re arbitrarily dismissing the examples and statistics I linked to and begging question. — AJJ

You apparently don't know what "begging the question" means.

I haven't arbitrarily dismissed the examples -- I'm quoting FROM the examples, which state explicitly that one should not use these cases as reasons not to take the vaccine. Very strange, given your use of them to support exactly that.

I expect you’d say that about any evidence. A coroner rules that woman has died from a vaccine induced blood clot. — AJJ

No, this is what the article said. The doctor said it was "likely," that's not conclusive. It's also ONE case out of hundreds of millions of doses given -- which you repeatedly want to ignore.

But again, let's assume it's true. This proves what, exactly? Because, as the articles state, it certainly doesn't prove you shouldn't take the vaccines. So it proves that there ARE freak cases out there, which I already anticipated several posts ago, that occur -- as with any vaccine or any product whatsoever? Is this the point you're making?

A number of countries suspended the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine over blood clot fears. — AJJ

And Johnson and Johnson, yes. Look at the conclusions to those pauses.

A study links the Pfizer vaccine to blood clots also. — AJJ

It does not, as the article mentions.

Many reports have been made of deaths and health conditions following a vaccine dose. — AJJ

Many reports have been made of death and health conditions following taking ibuprofen. I guess that settles it.

By "reports" you mean anecdotes, not studies. Anecdotes, I repeat, are not evidence.

You say my ignorance is getting people killed. Would it surprise you to learn that I think the same of you — AJJ

It wouldn't, no. Given that 5.6 billion doses around the world have been given, however, I think the data speak for themselves -- even if we take your desperate and selective searching for "evidence" of "death and debilitation" seriously, it's still extremely safe and effective, especially compared to the COVID death rate and hospitalizations.

But like most anti-vaxxers, string together enough anecdotes, inconclusive studies, freak cases, etc., and this is enough to prove what they already wanted to believe.

You apparently don't know what "begging the question" means. — Xtrix

I’ve been told this before, also by someone who liked begging the question. You’re inclined to argue simply by assuming your position is true.

I haven't arbitrarily dismissed the examples -- I'm quoting FROM the examples, which state explicitly that one should not use these cases as reasons not to take the vaccine. Very strange, given your use of them to support exactly that. — Xtrix

I disagree with them. The JCVI partially disagrees with that claim in not recommending universal vaccination for 12-15 year olds. The important thing about the examples and statistics is that they show that death and health conditions can reasonably be thought to occur sometimes after a vaccine dose.

No, this is what the article said. The doctor said it was "likely," that's not conclusive. — Xtrix

Ms Dilks [the coroner] said Ms Shaw was previously fit and well but concluded that it was "clearly established" that her death was due to a very rare "vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia", a condition which leads to swelling and bleeding of the brain.

It's also ONE case out of hundreds of millions of doses given -- which you repeatedly want to ignore. — Xtrix

It’s one example that demonstrates that it can happen. How much is it happening? How much is too much? In my view that number does not have to be high to justify people having the right to choose. And it’s not the only side-effect.

A study links the Pfizer vaccine to blood clots also.
— AJJ

It does not, as the article mentions. — Xtrix

The Pfizer coronavirus vaccine has been linked to an increased chance of developing thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP), a rare blood disorder, Israeli researchers said Monday.

Many reports have been made of death and health conditions following taking ibuprofen. I guess that settles it.

By "reports" you mean anecdotes, not studies. Anecdotes, I repeat, are not evidence. — Xtrix

And so I don’t wish to see the taking of Ibuprofen mandated and it’s reasonable for people to decline using it.

The MRHA is a system to which these things are reported. They are reports.

I bet we could find evidence that some people died in car accidents on the way home from getting the shot. Probably more than those who got clots. Hmmm. Let's start a conspiracy. I could go on Tucker Carlson and be an expert!

And so I don’t wish to see the driving of cars mandated and it’s reasonable for people to decline using them.

And so I don’t wish to see the driving of cars mandated and it’s reasonable for people to decline using them. — AJJ

The purpose for which the analogy was offered flew right over your pointed little head. LOL! Car accidents are not the result of the vax. DOH! But a dummy might make that connection.

I misread your post and thought you’d said something about unrelated car accidents. But to my awareness cognitive difficulty is another possible symptom of these vaccines, and so car accidents could potentially be linked to them.

another possible — AJJ

Add "another possible" to "consideration" and "cause for concern". Do you actually think you walk in the footsteps of Socrates? Are you just fulfilling that role of questioning authority? A public service of thinking being a critic = critical thinking? Why you, AJJ? I mean, couldn't your side have found someone better to carry that water? Never mind. I'm done with you too, I guess.

You’re inclined to argue simply by assuming your position is true. — AJJ

No, by deferring to the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, and by looking at evidence.

You, on the other, hand, as an anti-vaxxer, assume your position is true, and then search desperately for evidence that supports it.

I haven't arbitrarily dismissed the examples -- I'm quoting FROM the examples, which state explicitly that one should not use these cases as reasons not to take the vaccine. Very strange, given your use of them to support exactly that.
— Xtrix

I disagree with them. — AJJ

So you disagree with your own weak citations.

Thank you, but I'll go with their conclusions on this matter over an anti-vaxxer on the internet. I guess this is "begging the question."

The JCVI partially disagrees with that claim in not recommending universal vaccination for 12-15 year olds. — AJJ

12-15 year olds are a different subject. That's currently being studied, as it should be. My guess is that this will be approved shortly.

You keep wanting to bring this up as if it supports your non-arguments. It doesn't.

The important thing about the examples and statistics is that they show that death and health conditions can reasonably be thought to occur sometimes after a vaccine dose. — AJJ

They do not, as the articles themselves say.

It’s one example that demonstrates that it can happen. — AJJ

I'll just quote myself at this point, to save time:

If you seriously want to play the game of "Well even ONE death proves it" -- then, I repeat: ANYTHING we do or use can be argued to lead to "death and debilitation." But it's a stupid argument. — Xtrix

The MRHA is a system to which these things are reported. They are reports. — AJJ

They are not reports. They are not studies. They are data -- data which is misinterpreted by you and your anti-vaxxer "sources."

The clotting cases you cited are weak. It's hardly "death and debilitation," which is a delusion. It can be said of anything, given the rarity.

"The same clotting conditions were substantially more likely to occur — and over longer periods — among people infected with the coronavirus, the study found.
-- NY times

Ask yourself why the world's experts are recommending these vaccines. Is it a global conspiracy? Do you really think they don't have answers to your questions? Do you really think there's no studies and data and mountains of evidence behind it? I can point you to plenty of them.

Also, we're not talking mandates. We're talking whether people should take the vaccine. The answer is yes, they should -- not only for themselves, but for the community. They're safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus -- these are facts, however many times you want to assert the opposite. Your "disagreeing" with the very experts you cite is irrelevant to me. You're not an expert, and are in no position to do so.

And so I don’t wish to see the driving of cars mandated — AJJ

Suddenly it's only about mandates, which is a different topic. We have had vaccine mandates for years, but that's simply not what's being discussed. If that's your issue, then stop making a fool of yourself attempting to argue against the vaccines safety and efficacy.

Talking to anti-vaxxers is basically talking to walls. It's a bad habit on my part. I think I do it in case others -- who are actually open to evidence and reasons -- see it and can be persuaded.

A while ago, wasn't one of the main anti-vaxxer arguments the fact that the FDA hadn't approved the vaccines yet? Funny how they haven't changed their stance...it's almost as if they can't be persuaded by evidence and reason.

A while ago, wasn't one of the main anti-vaxxer arguments the fact that the FDA hadn't approved the vaccines yet? Funny how they haven't changed their stance...it's almost as if they can't be persuaded by evidence and reason. — Xtrix

Yes, and their pivot was anticipated before it even happened. No matter what their current argument is, it will morph to new ground. Because it has nothing to do with science. Nothing whatsoever.

It's also interesting how some of those dying of Covid accepted other medical treatments that had not been approved by the FDA. And yet their lives were, in some cases, saved by those medicines.

You, on the other, hand, assume your position is true, and then search desperately for evidence that supports it. — Xtrix

Looking for evidence to support a view is called “thinking”, so it’s quite funny that you pour scorn on the endeavour.

So you disagree with your own weak citations.

Thank you, but I'll go with their conclusions on this matter over an anti-vaxxer on the internet. I guess this is "begging the question." — Xtrix

I disagree with the parts that say people shouldn’t feel disinclined to get the vaccine. They can feel that (or otherwise) if they want.

No, that wouldn’t be begging the question.

12-15 year olds are a different subject. That's currently being studied, as it should be. My guess is that this will be approved shortly.

You keep wanting to bring this up as if it supports your non-arguments. It doesn't. — Xtrix

The JCVI’s view shows there is that balance to consider between the vaccine’s benefits and it’s costs. This is what makes it relevant.

They do not, as the articles themselves say. — Xtrix

I posted a quotation from each showing that to be untrue.

They are not reports. They are not studies. They are data -- data which is misinterpreted by you and your anti-vaxxer "sources." — Xtrix

Data based on reports made to the MRHA.

The clotting cases you cited are weak. It's hardly "death and debilitation," which is a delusion. It can be said of anything, given the rarity. — Xtrix

I posted a quotation from the article showing this isn’t true. Dying from a blood clot is both death and debilitation.

"The same clotting conditions were substantially more likely to occur — and over longer periods — among people infected with the coronavirus, the study found.
-- NY times — Xtrix

In the young and healthy?

Ask yourself why the world's experts are recommending these vaccines. Is it a global conspiracy? Do you really think they don't have answers to your questions? Do you really think there's no studies and data and mountains of evidence behind it? I can point you to plenty of them. — Xtrix

Through witnessing arguments on social media and YouTube I discovered that most people, regardless of their qualifications and expertise, can’t reason their way to the end of a syllogism. How is it that a vaccinated individual is supposedly less likely to spread the virus than an unvaccinated asymptomatic individual? Can you direct me to an answer to that, that takes into account what I’ve previously said?

Also, we're not talking mandates. We're talking whether people should take the vaccine. — Xtrix

This discussion opened with me saying it was perfectly reasonable to decline receiving the vaccine. Not that anyone should or shouldn’t take it.

The answer is yes, they should -- not only for themselves, but for the community. They're safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus -- these are facts, however many times you want to assert the opposite. — Xtrix

This is question begging.

Suddenly it's only about mandates, which is a different topic. We have had vaccine mandates for years, but that's simply not what's being discussed. If that's your issue, then stop making a fool of yourself attempting to argue against the vaccines safety and efficacy. — Xtrix

If you bring up the potential consequences of other things like ibuprofen then it’s pertinent for me to give the same view about them: you don’t have to do or take those things and it’s fine if you don’t.

Plus, even without a strict mandate there’s coercion happening as a consequence of views such as yours, so speaking against mandates comes into this.

Looking for evidence to support a view is called “thinking” — AJJ

No, it isn't. It's called being an anti-vaxxer, which is what you are.

Rather, look at the evidence and then form an opinion. Not the other way around.

Data based on reports made to the MRHA. — AJJ

That's not the same as them being reports, or studies. A person "reporting" something is not a report. "A scientific report is a document that describes the process, progress, and or results of technical or scientific research or the state of a technical or scientific research problem."

Dying from a blood clot is both death and debilitation. — AJJ

So one ("likely") example out of 5+ billion doses. Which is what I mentioned before with freak cases, of which this (if it's true) would qualify.

There is no death and debilitation with COVID vaccines. They're safe and effective, as the evidence shows. There's no death and debilitation with toothpaste, either. Toothpaste is safe and effective, as the evidence shows.

We don't make claims based on freak accidents and anecdotes. If we're serious.

How is it that a vaccinated individual is supposedly less likely to spread the virus than an unvaccinated asymptomatic individual? — AJJ

It's never a guarantee that you'll be asymptomatic. Those who are vaccinated protect themselves from getting sick, and the community at large. The more people vaccinated, the quicker we get to herd immunity. This is not simply an individual choice. I know anti-vaxxers like you don't want to hear that. Too bad.

This discussion opened with me saying it was perfectly reasonable to decline receiving the vaccine. — AJJ

It isn't. Why? Because the vaccines are safe and effective. Given that over 5 billion doses have been given around the world, I think the data speak for themselves.

You, an anti-vaxxer, cite a case where a woman may have died after taking the vaccine, then state that you disagree with the doctors within this article that say it should in no way dissuade people from getting the vaccine.

5 billion vs. one freak (and inconclusive) case. Millions of deaths from COVID, millions of hospitalizations. Every major medical and scientific establishment advising vaccinations. Yet to anti-vaxxers, like you, it's "perfectly reasonable" to deny the vaccine. Sorry -- unless you have good reasons for doing so, it isn't reasonable to ignore what doctors and virologists are telling us to do.

The answer is yes, they should -- not only for themselves, but for the community. They're safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus -- these are facts, however many times you want to assert the opposite.
— Xtrix

This is question begging. — AJJ

The premises do not assume the truth of the conclusion. Thus, it's not question-begging. You don't know what you're talking about.

That the vaccines are safe is a fact. This is based on overwhelming evidence, of which I've given a sample. That they are effective, likewise. That they slow the spread, likewise.

The conclusion, based on these facts, is that one should take the vaccine -- assuming, of course, that we want to end the pandemic and care about our health and the health of others.

Best to not use terms you don't understand.

Plus, even without a strict mandate there’s coercion happening as a consequence of views such as yours, so speaking against mandates comes into this. — AJJ

This isn't about mandates.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/howard-stern-anti-vaxxers-go-fuck-yourself-1222672/

I agree with Howard. AJJ and James, both anti-vaxxers, are included in this.

Rather, look at the evidence and then form an opinion. Not the other way around. — Xtrix

You’re entirely impartial, sure. If evidence supports a view then that’s what it does I’m afraid.

A person "reporting" something is not a report. — Xtrix

Check.

So one ("likely") example out of 5+ billion doses. — Xtrix

I posted a quotation from the article that showed the coroner’s verdict was far more definitive than that.

There is no death and debilitation with COVID vaccines. They're safe and effective, as the evidence shows. — Xtrix

This is question begging.

Dying from a blood clot is both death and debilitation. Call it a “freak-case” if you like but underlying that is more question begging.

It's never a guarantee that you'll be asymptomatic. Those who are vaccinated protect themselves from getting sick, and the community at large. The more people vaccinated, the quicker we get to herd immunity. — Xtrix

No, but young healthy people have a high chance of mild or asymptomatic infection. If they become ill they can distance themselves from vulnerable people. If they’re asymptomatic I haven’t seen it demonstrated that they’re any more likely to spread it than a vaccinated person.

It isn't. Why? Because the vaccines are safe and effective. Given that over 5 billion doses have been given around the world, I think the data speak for themselves. — Xtrix

This is question begging. You claim they’re safe by assuming they are and dismissing anything that casts doubt on the claim.

You cite a case where a woman may have died after taking the vaccine — Xtrix

She did die after taking the vaccine.

Sorry -- unless you have good reasons for doing so, it isn't reasonable to ignore what doctors and virologists are telling us to do. — Xtrix

It can be if you can think.

That the vaccines are safe is a fact. This is based on overwhelming evidence, of which I've given a sample. That they are effective, likewise. That they slow the spread, likewise. — Xtrix

You assume these things and dismiss anything that casts doubt on them. It’s question begging.

I posted a quotation from the article that showed the coroner’s verdict was far more definitive than that. — AJJ

Like most anti-vaxxers, you didn't read your own article. But it doesn't matter, because I'm willing to grant it as "true" -- I in fact anticipated this several posts earlier.

Cling to that one death if you want, that's fine. If you seriously think this proves the statement of "death and debilitation," which you clearly do, you're also welcome to that.

In that case, there's death and debilitation associated with literally everything, including walking in a field -- because people have been struck by lighting. So walking in a field involves death and debilitation. For anyone serious, this is simply laughable. But so be it.

This is question begging. — AJJ

You don't know what that means, so stop using it.

Call it a “freak-case” if you like — AJJ

One case presented out of 5 billion doses is a freak case, yes. 5,000 cases would be freak cases, in that sense. More people die in bathtubs.

But keep trying.

This is question begging. — AJJ

You don't understand what that means, so stop using it. Make you look like a bigger idiot than you already are, as an anti-vaxxer.

Sorry -- unless you have good reasons for doing so, it isn't reasonable to ignore what doctors and virologists are telling us to do.
— Xtrix

It can be if you can think. — AJJ

It can be if you're a complete imbecile, too. Which is much more likely than an anti-vaxxer on the internet knowing more than thousands of the world's leading experts, who have dedicated their lives to studying these issues.

That the vaccines are safe is a fact. This is based on overwhelming evidence, of which I've given a sample. That they are effective, likewise. That they slow the spread, likewise.
— Xtrix

You assume these things and dismiss anything that casts doubt on them. It’s question begging. — AJJ

You don't understand what that means, so stop using it.

It's not "assumed," it's supported by the overwhelming evidence. Anti-vaxxers like you reject this evidence, of course, but that proves about as much as the fact that flat Earthers and Creationists also deny evidence contrary to their beliefs.