@ Clark June 13, 2020 at 11:36
‘…There’s a reason for that, but it takes a bit of thought. Do you have any interest in this? Or would you rather reflexively assume the hand of an overarching conspiracy?..’
Yes, I think it should be pretty obvious to a ten year old that I have an interest in the vaccine debate: I did not believe such a question required or deserved a response.
Yes, as you are aware, I instinctively suspect a conspiracy in any skulduggery, not necessarily ‘overarching’ but on a ‘need to know’ basis.
‘…I asked you a question Paul. Of what relevance is my opinion of Wakefield to any scientific matter?
I keep asking questions and you keep ignoring them, so my impression is that you are avoiding debate and instead evangelising.’
I avoided your question? I asked you for your opinion of Wakefield after watching his interview; instead of telling me, you fire off a question to me. So you didn’t answer my question. It’s OK for you to do it, but heinous for me.
But, here goes: I asked you to watch the short video interview, and then tell me your opinion of Wakefield, because many people, including myself, can make a pretty sound judgement of watching someone’s interview, as to their character and if they appear to be telling the truth. Your answer would provide have me with a more balanced idea of you rather than him.
Yes, of course I am evangelising. It is incumbent on me, as a Christian and as a caring human being, to do my best to spread the truth as I know it re what can be causing life-long distressful illnesses, sometimes completely ruining lives or even causing death, to babies and young children.
I assume you are trying to do the same, it’s just you believe the risk of adverse effects is worth the alleged ‘benefits’, and I don’t.
All that I have written here should have been plain to you in the first place – why waste your and my time?