"Anti-vax is an ideology which tries to convince others to avoid getting vaccinated. Precisely how it accomplishes this is irrelevant. What matters is that (1) there is extensive scientific evidence that vaccines are safe and effective for the vast majority of people; (2) the safety and efficacy are sufficient for the medical community to endorse vaccination as a means to reduce overall harm; (3) anti-vaxxers reject the reality of this situation; (4) anti-vax propaganda methods seek to reduce vaccine uptake; (5) the general public is greatly harmed when misled by this anti-vax propaganda.
When obvious anti-vax statements were banned from this sub, anti-vaxxers evolved to use stealthier tactics. They frequently mention that they are vaccine injured, in an attempt to make vaccine adverse events seem more common than they really are. They try to raise fear of vaccines by telling their own anecdotal accounts, loudly proclaiming that they will never get vaccinated again. They post questions asking the community if it makes sense to get booster shots, which spreads a sense of social uncertainty surrounding the vaccine. Their goal is to make vaccines seem more dangerous than they are. They don't need to make overt anti-vax statements in order to achieve this goal; it is enough to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the vaccine by reinforcing the "truth" socially.
Fear, uncertainty and doubt (often shortened to FUD) is a propaganda tactic used in sales, marketing, public relations, politics, polling and cults. FUD is generally a strategy to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information and a manifestation of the appeal to fear.
The anti-vax FUD in this sub is not always false, and is mutating to make claims that may or may not be technically true, but create the impression of heightened epidemiological prevalence for readers. The primary tactic now is to spread vaccine fear by priming people with information which triggers the base rate fallacy.
The base rate fallacy ... is a type of fallacy in which people tend to ignore the base rate (i.e., general prevalence) in favor of the individuating information (i.e., information pertaining only to a specific case).
When members of this sub talk vaguely about their hypothetical, unprovable vaccine adverse events, the minds of other readers will interpret these anecdotes to estimate vaccine side-effects as much more common than they actually are."
Ok bud, no need to patronizing me i understood you perfectly well and ummm hello ?? - i'm directly quoting you here - you seem to be on a witchhunt here and you are coming off frankly as quite unhinged - maybe you need to step away from this sub for awhile ?