Dox?

My independent research concludes that you have been brainwashed by the anti-vaxxer lobby.

How good of you to slink into this thread two month after the fact, drop a comment, and leave. Pity it has little of nothing to do with the subject at hand.

The VCIP is a federally administered program that was set up by Congress in 1988, and is not affiliated with any health or scientific organization. It is designed to legally compensate anyone who believes their child was damaged through the use of vaccines. Total payments through 2008 were $847 million, with $903 million paid out for retroactive claims for damages suffered before 1988. Of all these claims, only one is autism-related.

The Supreme Court has never ruled vaccines “unavoidably unsafe.” They did hear arguments in a case in which this term was used. It does not mean “unsafe.” It is used to describe a beneficial product whose use may involve risks that are outweighed by the benefits. Much more here, with full citations:
http://momswhovax.blogspot.com/2013/11/vaccines-and-unavoidably-unsafe-products.html

Has Christian ever publicly shared his story with Scientology in written form? I don’t mean a book; just an interview or a post on ESMB or anything along those lines.

Bwahahahaha…

Indeed. With a healthy dose of perspective.

Observation: Reduced numbers of people receiving vaccines has resulted in outbreaks of diseases long-controlled or even absent from the United States and Europe.
Statistics bear this out.

Observation: People react more strongly t an emotional anecdote than they do to cold, hard facts and statistics. The fact that there is no proof of links, to name one example, between Autism and Vaccination is not evidence that there is one. IF we must prove every negative correlation or object that has no basis for being considered a case or vector in disease, we will be making a lot of busy work for scientists ins-deed;.
And in that flood of statistics,information, and over-whelming data will be people with magnifying glasses willing to take every namely or misprint as proof of their pet theory.
Failing that,y he absence of evidence will be considered proof of a cover-up or conspiracy.
This shit goes down great with NoI types who believe White People were invented by a n evil scientist with a easy)bake oven. IT is also mann to half-baked, easily convinced Scilons and ‘Freezers’ who have spent he greater part of their adult lives trying to prove that Hubbard’s Naval records were ‘sheep-dipped’ and that he avtually was the Greatest Hero Who Ever Lived.`
I am glad you managed to analyze your way out of Scientology. I am sure your friends, family and loved ones are as well, and I hope those you love and care about (and all the others, actually) will follow you soon.
But it is not great proof of analytical shrewdness to have believed that hogwash for an instant.
The sad thing is that when lot of people finally get a check for a fraction of their money once the CoS goes down like a L Ron whopper to a bunch of OTIIIs, they will turn round and try and find someone selling a bridge in Arizona to spend it on.

A big part of the scientific process is observation, in fact it is the first step. 1. Observation, 2, hypothesis, 3. experimentation.

Observing helped keep me rational in scientology and helped
me say no. I did not see, observe, they
had anything to offer me that was worth what they wanted me to pay. I observed that what they said they do, is
not what they did.

I observed that the people around me did not seem better off than myself, they were smoking, theyhad health issues.

When I was grilled about whether I had heard anything negative about scientology I observed the effect of this was to try to get men ot to hear anything negative. I wanted to operate better in the world not isolate from it. I also observed it was a step toward limiting my freedoms and limiting my ability to gather data from many different sources and compare.

It is important to be aware that scientific data, whether it be experimental or observational, is not from only one source. We know there can be researcher bias in any topic someone is interested in so it is important that information comes from a variety of unrelated sources if possible. That is the scary part of scientology to me.

I like to ask if the people involved in the research have something to gain, are they shareholders in a corporation benefitting from whatever is being examined. This could go for scientology. If this is the case I like to get some outside input.

Somethings it is really hard to apply objective experimentation to, such as double blind studies with individuals. Sometimes people do not want to have independent research done or outside examination of issues because of what they will lose. Obviously scientology did not want to participate in a full investigation or discussion of L. Ron. Hubbard’s biography because of observed irregularities.

What I have observed is, lack of experimental proof something is harmful does not mean it is automatically safe, especially in the face of observed problems.

Observations from many sources give me more of a big picture and are
so important for me to answer the question, is what they are telling me true?
am I making an honest statement about xyz or have I distorted it?. Can I really draw that conclusion? Anecdotes can also be powerful and important observations, they are a necessary first step that sometimes point to the need for further research or caution.