published by a crank who had his medical license pulled when it was found he manipulated data and performed the study unbelievably unethically.

And it's been exacerbated by people who don't know the first thing about science.

But we are supposed to knuckle under and appreciate their "policy and experience" (whatever that means). In other words, stfu they will continue to base their lives on woo.

However, the OP is addressing the reasons why a discredited study was able to sway so many opinions against vaccination.

I'm assuming you are educated like me. We are clearly able to apply critical thinking skills to this issue and arrive at a reasoned conclusion, probably because we are older and were taught how to reason. Most people can't do that, because they are only taught to memorize school-board-approved facts and not how to think critically. That's how education works now.

The best way to prevent discredited, bogus research from wreaking its destruction is to properly teach our citizens to assess the validity of an argument. Then, when garbage science gets foisted on the public it will be summarily and rightly ignored.

When they really are science-based progressives.

But you go on trying to force-fit your false equivalency into the conversation. The Earth is round, by the way. We landed on the Moon. And contrails are made of water.

Do you call people 'Round-Earthers'. 'Moon-Landers' or 'Contrail-Apologists'?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

This is not a "both sides do it" issue. One side is right, and the other is wrong. End of story.

There is nothing about how healthcare is done in the United States that should lead a reasonable person to actively deny the scientific consensus on vaccinations. Company A's behavior does not invalidate a century's worth of scientific research.

There's world-wide accepted science, and there's woo.

There's no grey area here. That's it.

Make your choice.

Sid

It's that simple.

give their kid the shot LOL

Turns out that vaccinating prevents disease, and that vaccinating enough people can eradicate it. Turns out that not vaccinating leads to outbreaks.

How many breaths should we take before vaccinating more people?

The vaccination programs are in place. Access is there. The problem is the encouragement of anti-vac idiocy by the media, by various political leaders, and by an ethos of selfish stupidity fostered by the last 35 years of the right wing Bad Deal.

Anti-science stupidity is not something that deserves patience or treatment as someone's "valid opinion."

There is no reason to have patience with climate change deniers.
There is no reason to have patience with "pray the gay away" activists.
There is no reason to have patience with anti-abortionists.
There is no reason to have patience with creationists.
There is no reason to have patience with flat earthers.
There is no reason to have patience with anti-vaxxers.

It's long past time to kick this permissive bullcrap that "everyone can have an opinion" that's contrary to science in the teeth.

about the cowboys on dinosaurs.

I don't disagree about the nature of science. But I think constantly attacking anti-vaxxers just drives them into consolidating their beliefs. If you challenge the for "evidence" they will look for someone with the credentials you demand to write a scientific paper.

Again, think of the goal. If the goal is to get everyone vaccinated, then then the only way to reach that goal is through negotiating with these people...because if, at the end of the day, they out-vote you, what are you going to do? Just saying "science" isn't going to do jackshit for you. You've got to get people on board to get anything to happen in the actual community.

People pushing nonsense need to be laughed out of the room

The world is round

(or at least technically a spheroid)

He/or she will be pushed out of the room. That is the point I'm trying to make.

Just because you manage to be the loudest on some forum like DU does not mean your going to prevail on getting your will done in real world politics. That takes consensus and votes.

I'm all for vaccinations, but in my eyes the arrogant, mean-spirited approach you are taking is the biggest enemy there is to *getting* more thorough vaccination coverage. Because if I were on the opposite side of a conversation with you, my first instinct would be to shut down and walk away (if you didn't give me reason to start a bar fight first).

But if I were to entertain my own conspiracy theory, it would be that all this mocking of anti-vaxxers is a false-flag designed to polarize them and thus prevent a significant portion of the population from getting vaccinated, leading to the 1% fantasy of culling the herd...*dons tinfoil hat*

Anyway, polarizing is all you do when you act this way.

but is useless on the delusional hold on to my beliefs at all costs. That just leads to the 'both sides' have reasonable point of views, when that is not the case.

Those folks need to know they are off the deep end and derisive laughter is the best way to let them know they are out of touch with the real world.

The world is round, not flat.

People are entitled to their own opinions, but not to have them considered when they delusional.

This problem is in consensus over science- which relates to climate and a host of other issues. While public schools is one place this issue needs to be addressed, it's not the only place - obviously there are other places in public culture we need to hammer out the question: "How do we get people to trust Big Science...?" This is a multi-pronged conversation, but if the foundations for consensus can be established, I think it will be easier to get people to merge "reason" and "common sense" over vaccinations.

In the long haul, though, I think this needs to be fixed through public education, though. Discourage home schooling, build diverse secular textbook review committees, emphasize active learning with critical thinking and debate...perhaps spotting quack science should become a new module in Home Ec!

Ebola was the set-up, fear fear fear.

It makes me sad to hear the vitriol being leveled at one another on this issue.

Idiocy and a half-witted denial of science is the most effective way to divide.

"It makes me sad to read the vitriol of Voltaire and Twain..." (six of one, half a dozen of the other)

Both sides in this issue aren't equally valid. One side is delusional and is getting people killed.

In fact, I think that there's a good capital punishment case to be made against them for committing genocide, and futurecide.

Interesting to see so many wanting to go after anti vaxers, when there's so much more blatantly deadly activities going on in our midst.

There's been wave after wave of vaxxing posts to prevent some kids from getting the measles. If only there were that level of attention to homelessness, cuts in food stamps, gaps in health care coverage, etc. I consider the mortality differentials from that genocide as well. But do we see post tsunamis about those issues? Nope.

Nothing like a diversion from a diversion.

vaccines are a matter up for debate. People are dying for lack of more vaccines. If you are not in favor of vaccines, you favor death. The level of arrogance is astounding.
Knowledge = Life

I'm thinking we might not have that much time.

I don't think raising hostilities will speed the process up, though.

I just highlighted that section for all the commenters above who didn't actually read my post and assumed this was a stealth anti-vax piece.

In my view, people who make it impossible for discussion to even occur are also reducing vaccinations, so perhaps they should be lumped in with "anti-vaxxers" as enemies of progress.

...then think about how many people lambaste President Obama when he "negotiates" with the Republicans, rather than holds fast to progressive principles.

how one of the fundamental mistakes they make is approaching people with "I think you're stupid" arrogance. We were actually chiding ourselves on it before the GOP took possession of it as their own propaganda point. But it's true. If you come at someone with a know-it-all attitude, they will stop listening to you. It doesn't matter how right you are. If you want knowledge to prevail, the only way to do that is to make sure the majority of people have that knowledge.

First of all, I am by no means an "anti-vaxxer" and have had all my children vaccinated. My oldest is starting college so I'm making sure she has all booster shots as well. I have been reading many of the postings railing against those who are considered "anti-vaxxers" and it has bothered me quite a lot. Why? Because a lot of these posts are making disturbing generalizations like "all anti-vaxxers are selfish", "all anti-vaxxers are smug, superior types", blah, blah, blah. Yeah, sometimes it feels good to vent but what does that accomplish? Nothing. A lot of these people who don't vaccinate their kids are just scared and they think they are doing the right thing. The best way to try and address that is through education, calmly stated not by screaming invectives. I remember a few years ago talking to a new mom at a basketball game and she mentioned that she was not going to get her new baby vaccinated because she didn't want to risk her child getting autism. I could have gotten on my high horse and preached to her about how selfish she was being, how stupid, etc. etc. etc which would have accomplished NOTHING, or I could try to empathize and then tell her what I knew about the subject. As it so happens why my first child was born when all the panic and hysteria about the MMR vaccine and autism was at full peak. I remember being absolutely terrified. I told this new mom about my struggles and my fears so I completely understood where she was coming from. (I told her I went ahead with the MMR and my kids were fine.) I went on to tell her what I had since learned, I told her about the Wakefield Study which started all the panic and how it has since been deemed a fraud. I could tell she was listening to me, really listening. I ran into her again about a month later and she told me that after talking to me she went home and did some more research on those things I had mentioned to her (the fake Wakefield study, a study in Japan that showed even after outlawing MMR the autism rates stayed the same, etc.). She got her baby vaccinated.

Terrific first post and we're glad to have you with us!

"There is the lack of universal health care, which has left people with no medical care or seeking various alternative forms of care."

How many threads have we seen started right here in GD where people talk about they are dying or someone close to them is in pain, or whatever it is, because they couldn't get the treatment they need/needed which would help them? As I recall, almost NONE of those threads were started by those residing in Canada or the UK or France or Israel, or anywhere else with single payer health care.

People WANT to be healthy - some more than others, perhaps, but when denied access to health care, people attempt to solve their health problems ... wait for it ... WITHOUT real health care. Over time, they aren't going to give a shit that someone out there in the ether thinks they are 'fucking stupid'; they are going to do what they need to do to get from point A to point B, as they have been doing all along, with varying levels of success but with more success overall than they would have had if they had done nothing.

Mississippi, the poorest state in the nation, has the highest measles vaccination rate.

Poverty isn't the problem. Stupidity is.

So what's the point in engaging with you? I'm glad you have all the answers, Jeff, and I look forward to seeing you cure cancer, resolve the conflict in the Middle East, and creating a simple, cheap way to industrialize cold fusion.

Feel free to provide them. That will strengthen your argument.

My claim is the inability to afford vaccination is not the primary driver of the anti-vaxxination movement, based on vaccination rates. Very poor places have very high vaccination rates. Very wealthy places have much lower vaccination rates.

Your response is to get indignant that someone wants to talk about facts.

Peace.

I developed the position that you see in my OP because I'm from rural Virginia. The very poor places that have high vaccination rates are those that have vaccinations. What I've tried to do is give a small sample - just a few of many - of the CULTURAL elements that spawned anti-vax positions. These cultural elements do not make people stupid. What's stupid is to keep calling people stupid and expecting they will come to terms with you.

Anti-vaxx beliefs are similar to religious beliefs. They are not rational. They can not be overcome with a rational argument.

Attempting to have a rational debate implicitly elevates their position to "rational". Which means people who have not "chosen a side" will believe that the anti-vaxxers have a point. Because the only reason for you to have this debate is if they have a point. Which exposes the middle-of-the-road people to the fraud that is at the core of anti-vaxx beliefs, and some will fall for it.

Anti-vaxxers are lost. You can not get them back to reality. The best you can do is contain the harm they cause, or we will soon be "enjoying" polio again.

One was my housemate.

I still believe the approach you are taking is not going to "contain" anti-vaxxers - it's going to define, strengthen, and empower them with anger.

Since I remember you from the whole Gamergate thing, perhaps you can make that comparison. The harder and nastier the guys were to those three women, the more visible their cause became and the more defense they got from the general public, right? That's how reality works.

They already believe they are brave rebels standing up to an corrupt and oppressive conspiracy.

I'm not sure what to think of your comment that the "harder and nastier" side won with the general public. I'm under the impression the women won - but maybe you are under the impression the women were "harder and nastier"? Well this is not the thread to stir that fight back up. I was hoping you would see the comparison, but evidently you don't.

I think your "religion" comparison was the best in regard to the anti-vaxxing position - and I agree it would take a "conversion experience" for someone deeply imbued in it to change their mind since it involves so much "evidence" and an entire worldview. If Jews said it was against their religion to vaccinate, would you go around spewing anti-Semitic remarks in the name of science and saving the children? I think you would tread a little more carefully, realizing you were actually dealing with a religion here and that religion will bite back. Whatever you do to "contain" anti-vaxxers, I think you should start by thinking, "would I address Catholics or Methodists the same way?"

A better example is Christian Scientists. Haven't there been a number of legal cases around them refusing medical treatment for their children? Do they vaccinate? Do they count as anti-vaxxers in your mind? Would you address them in the same way? Would you address them to their face instead of just coming to DU and venting about them?

You are not adhering to your own Mark Twain quote to never argue with the "fool" when you hurl insults at the "fool".

We tried being nice. It got us more anti-vaxxers. There's zero evidence that continuing to be nice will reverse that.

Additionally, you assert that anti-vaxxers are rational, and can be reached rationally. This is easily disproven by their arguments. For example, "Big Pharma" loses lots of money on vaccines. They make way more money treating the illnesses instead of vaccinating against them. Yet "Big Pharma profit" is a major argument that anti-vaxxers make.

So no, we should not continue to be nice. We should start calling them dumbasses. Because the current anti-vaxxers are lost. They will never be convinced that they are wrong. Instead, mocking, shunning and otherwise "flaming" them will help reduce the number that join their ranks.

Okay, so give me your "game plan" on how you plan to MAKE other people who don't agree with you do your will while you are calling them stupid, irrational dumbasses. If "being nice" didn't work, what are you going to try now? (After calling them "dumbasses" of course.)

Specifically, this part:

I agree with what you said about not being able to convert someone who is devoutly following a religion. But it doesn't follow from there that you heap mockery and insult upon them. In fact, Rome found that kind of treatment turned Christians into martyrs and turned Christianity into a world religion. Backfire!

There is a difference between deciding you can't convert someone and "pretending there is no debate to be had" and actively barraging them with ridicule which is the "strategy" that's being taken against anti-vaxxers under the pretext that this is somehow "for the children". But it is not "for the children" because this won't work - it will simply harden people's position and make them lash out. The vaxxer thing has simply become an excuse for people to let their inner jackass out.

And look at what they are seeing.

They are not seeing Rational vs. Irrational.

They are seeing Ridicule (irrational) vs. The Underdog ...which might make them check out The Underdog's position.

So even if your "intended audience" is the third party, I think you will backfire, because you are not coming across as the Voice of Science. If you were "Elevated" and "Rational" as you say, you would be above petty mockery and speak in terms of the debate only - avoiding ad hominem attacks, etc. If you are just using marketing tactics to smear someone, the average person will say - well that's "just like the government" and "what do they have to hide?" This is exactly what you want to avoid!

I said the anti-vaxxers do not matter, they can not be converted. You are arguing as if I said the uninformed do not matter.

If you're going to demand a calm, rational debate everywhere else, you should at least take the time to make a rational argument here.

If the anti-vaxxers didn't matter you would just ignore them.

As I said in my other comment, if your audience is third parties, this "Vax Campaign" is also blowing that because it comes across as Irrational rather than champions of the Rational and Scientific. I think you are deluded if you think the masses are going to get onboard with a bunch of bullies. Instead they are going to check out who they think the "underdog" in the fight is. You are magnifying a "martyr" here by your actions.

They always think that they know the true reality and those that don't agree are a threat and must be dealt with harshly. The ends justify the means and they are fighting the good fight, therefore, bully behavior is ok. I have asked some that use ridicule or mocking, for their justification of such behavior and they respond, "they deserved it". That is clearly the motto of the bully. This case is an excellent example. I would agree that those that support vaccinations are following science and taking the progressive stand. However, those that use that rationalization to self-righteously bully are not progressive/liberal.

Ignorance should be fought with education and not bully behavior.

"You are magnifying a "martyr" here by your actions." How true.

Because of this, shame based arguing is one of the few tools left.

show me where it's working for you instead of hardening positions.

I agree that demonizing those that don’t agree isn’t likely to help the problem. Those that choose not to believe in science IMO do so out of ignorance. But you don’t deal with ignorance with shaming, mocking, and ridiculing. It may feel good but it won’t fix the problem.

Not so much on the hard-as-rock science disbelievers but on those who watch from the sidelines, undecided. The anger and resentment of those who end up sick because of others' stubbornness can be useful.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

are subject to it will tell you different. And those that use it use the justification of "they deserved it" as if they are the decider.

Education is the key to fighting ignorance not bullying.

It may help those on the sidelines. And how much patience was needed to convince people that the Earth really is round? Despite those who were imprisoned for promoting that idea, would it have been better to simply wait it out until more rational descendants appeared?

I think being patient with fanatics only encourages them.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

fanatics and those that thought they were fanatics were using your logic for their extreme behavior. Each side considers the other side as extreme and justifies their own behavior as righteous.

"I think being patient with fanatics only encourages them. " Does that mean you think one should be extreme with extremists?

Reminds me of what a bathroom wall philosopher one said: "Castrate extremists"

I support vaccinations, I don't support mob rule.

I note that you do not have the nerve to discuss this is the real world frame in which the most deadly virus of our times is without a vaccine which most decent people are hoping for and working to create. What you want is to revert to some medieval mindset that fears progress and science, you want me to call that reasonable, and I will most certainly not do that for you.

Silence = Death
Knowledge = Life

I didn't comment because I didn't think that needed further comment.

The topic of my thread was about the way the vax campaign is being conducted, and I've been responding to comments that pertain to that. I don't think the approach of mockery, insult, shaming, etc. will further the cause of getting your HIV vaccine.

You don't care about it.
You are asked about the number one public health crisis in our times, you think it needs no comment but want to harp on and on pushing your science doubting bullshit. You think idiot beliefs require respectful discussion, but HIV when discussing viral disease, needs no comment. Sick priorities.
It is wrong empower deadly habits an beliefs in people. I'd rather mock them than bury them.

And I was replying to "your" comment. No offense intended. I agree about HIV.

I'm not even going to say which side that is.

Could you recommend better phrasing of that? Provisional settling of the matter?

Fox News propagates lies and conspiracy theories about Obama.

This is less about a govt "failure" than a well funded disinformation campaign.

and again, I don't think ranting about how stupid people will help with that problem.This is the education they received, the information they read, the input they have gotten. The foundation of "consensus on science" needs to be changed somehow.

And you can't just put it back in.

Yes, reforming education will do much to prevent future outbreaks of stupid, but the current stupid outbreak needs to be contained before it causes more damage than it already has.

My point is calling people stupid is just going to backfire and possibly win the Republican party a lot of new members, since the people being called stupid aren't going to feel very comfortable in the Democrat room. And when Republicans have the policy power, all your righteous and educated views in the world won't count for a thing.

So your plan is...? Forced vaccinations? Quarantines? Concentration camps? No one seems to be thinking out what their "no more Mr. Nice Guy" plan is beyond the barrage of insults. And I think when they do think it through, they will realize it's untenable in a Democratic society.

The same features on the resume that was chosen for bank regulator is present on the resume chosen for drug regulator.

There's ample reason to suspect that regulatory aspects of our government are compromised by profit motives among the companies being regulated.

Enough to reject vaccines? No, but I can see how a suspicious person might reach that conclusion.

Confirmation bias assures that ridicule and shaming aren't useful in changing opinions. Either use empathy and listening to change opinions and restore trust, or make government issued vaccinations compulsory, and be prepared for the effects that this confirmation of their preexisting bias (and implicit rejection of trust restoration) will have on other issues.

Somebody roll down the window and let the fart out.