| > Do you believe they have all the data needed to make that a final conclusion? There is no "final conclusion". There will always be more data. So far the data have rather strongly indicated greater benefit than harm, even among the reports asserting correlations between vaccines and adverse reactions, so it doesn't seem very surprising to see consensus on that among medical experts. The consensus ain't always right, to be clear. Maybe the small minority of experts asserting more harm than good are onto something. The body of data supporting such assertions is far more lacking, so I wouldn't bet on it. > Or are most of those medical professionals simply following certain leaders and descission makers? It's usually the other way around: the "certain leaders and decisionmakers" in the pro-vaccination camp largely lead/decide based on how experts are informing them - and there's certainly no shortage of said experts. It's a fair bit more varied in the anti-vaccination camp; some such leaders/decisionmakers do defer to experts (and it's simply a case of their pool of experts being in the anti-vaccination camp), but it seems like most instead assume they know better than the experts; they tend to be the sorts of folks who already reject scientific methodology for various reasons, and thus are not inclined to defer to experts informed by said methodology. |
I still think it's important to point out that in this situation, with a) a lack of primary data and especially b) considering the political and societal implications for publicly disagreeing with the "accepted opinion" consensus might just not be a great measure in this case.