Hey everyone. A recent article came out saying there's a correlation between not believing in vaccines and believing the moon landing was fake (among other things). I don't know what to make of their argument, what do you guys think?
new study on vaccination belief
If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names. Elbert Hubbard.
op - you might like this video:
Collusion facts are not conspiracy theories. All research to date on the issue has shown that human beings are monumentally bad @ operating outside their COIs.
The idea that to believe that there are issues with Vaccine Safety is to believe 'that all in science in medicine are evil & corrupt' is a fallacy of the highest order.
If you have not looked at the video, how can you know what is in it?
It does bring up some interesting points about the term "conspiracy theorist" how different countries interpret things, etc.
Edited by kathymuggle - 10/3/13 at 1:32pm
Hmmm, in the case of vaccines I would add to part of the quote above that: science is based on looking at all the evidence, rather than focusing on some abnormality (whether true or believed to be true). No matter what the evidence shows, those that believe there's a conspiracy cannot be convinced otherwise. The debates found here are only useful if undecided parents are using the information within these forums to make a decision. Sadly, I don't think that is the case. Thanks for reading :)
I agree with Dinahx. Anyone with a dogma cannot be made to look at the evidence. This certainly applies to vaxxers as readily as non-vaxxers. I agree the debates here are most useful if undecided parents use information or links within these forums to make a decision. I have no idea how often that happens - more than we see, of course, as a lot of undecideds are probably lurkers - but not a huge amount as MDC is not overly active.
I was not thrilled with the article. A lot of the wording showed bias. I looked at the study too - meh. IIRC one of the conclusions of the study was those who were conspiracy theorists (as defined by the researchers based on a questionnaire) were 2 or 3 times more likely to question vaccines than the general public. This tells us very little. It does not tell us what percentage of people who believe vaccines are problematic are conspiracy theorists.
In any event, I don't really care if a large percentage of non-vaxxers are defined as "conspiracy theorists" (or, in other words, someone who does not readily accept everything the state and corporations tell them - hardly a horrible attribute). I care whether they are right or wrong, and how strong the case is.
Edited by kathymuggle - 10/3/13 at 11:01am
Arguments like this make me want to throw my foil hat at the computer.
Seriously, if the only argument that can be made against me is "You're crazy. Look everyone! See how crazy she is?!" then I think we need to examine what actual evidence the folks making this argument have. They have nothing. They aren't even attacking the actual argument about the safety of vaccinations or the science on either side. They're no different than kids on a playground shouting names.
This decision has to be made for product after (ever increasing) product & many times through the life span in different states of personal & community health. Also there will always be questions & controversies surrounding it.
I also like to hear what both sides have to say about recent developments. And when an article (for example) doesn't even get a mention on here, IMO, that says something too.
I don't think anyone who is familiar with the anti vaccine movement is surprised in the least by this study. Just look at popular anti vaccine sites, they are filled with conspiracy theories. Here are some examples :
From the Australian Vaccination Network (Meryl Dorey) :
“The word ‘evil’ is much overused and I don’t say it lightly; but we are dealing with evil in the sense that the word is the reverse of ‘live’. Those behind the conspiracy to cull the human population and turn the rest into little more than computer terminals are anti-life.”
He also buys into the AIDS conspiracy
And don't even get me started on whale who, along with being anti vaccine, also believes that reptilian overlords are taking over the world...or something.
By definition, believing that the moon landing was faked, or that 9/11 is an inside job, or that Princess Diana faked her own death or was murdered by M16, or that the government is purposefully killing children through vaccines and hiding it *does* make you a conspiracy theorist. These *are* conspiracy theories.
When I was in college I took a philosophy course on logic. In the course we learned the structure of valid arguments and also the many invalid argumentative techniques used as smokescreens. The suggestion that people who choose not to vaccinate are crazy is just that, a smokescreen that is not an actual valid argument.
Take this example for instance: Let's say there is a crazy person who thinks she is the queen of England. She goes around everywhere saying she is the queen of England. But she also says "the sky is blue". If we use the strategy used in the post above, we could make the argument that of course the sky is not blue, I mean look at the source of this information. She's crazy! But actually, the source is irrelevant to the truth of the statement. Saying people who don't vaccinate are crazy does NOTHING to discredit their claims. It's just a personal attack at the root of it. It's meant to inflame. It's meaningless.
I can clearly see the point of this thread. You show us an article, then wait for all of us crazy conspiracy theorists to come out of the woodwork. Shall I take the bait, or leave it be?
I'll address one, and leave the other arguments for another day, as tempting as it may be to school you on 9/11.
Let's talk about GMOs.....now, folks, if you believe GMOs are safe, and GMO skeptics are just crazy, then you need to learn more. Educate yourself about GMOs. I'm asking you to learn more because I believe they are detrimental to the health of life on this planet.
Where is the "science" on GMOs? If you look to the FDA to keep you safe, well keep looking. The FDA has not preformed any safety studies on GMOs. So, ask yourself, "How much do I trust Monsanto"?
How's that for science? Still feel safe, warm, and fuzzy? Oh, but don't listen to me, I'm just a conspiracy theorist. I guess I'm bad because I don't think Monsanto is the epitome of all that is good and holy.
There are former Monsanto employees now holding influential government positions. Why is this important? Michael Taylor, former Monsanto executive, is now on the FDA as Deputy Commissioner of Foods. Does this concern you in any way? Talk about the fox guarding the hen house. Revolving door politics is not safe, and it's a shame you people don't hold your government to higher standards.
Educate yourself. Don't worry about your peers calling you names (like conspiracy theorist). Think for yourself, judge the evidence. You don't have to follow the others if they are wrong.
Teacozy, the term "conspiracy theory" and its variant, "conspiracy theorists" should not be part of any discussion or debate here.
I'm sure that there are some people with mental illness who are suffering from delusional paranoia. Those people have nothing to do with the fact that there is massive corruption within the US government, within the pharmaceutical industry, and extending to the news media. It's become popular amongst defenders of the current vaccination program to use the term "conspiracy theorist" to insult anyone who points out corruption, and to shift the focus from that corruption to the person pointing it out. It's worse than insulting; it's a calculated maneuver designed paint the opposition as mentally ill, rather than defending your own position with facts.
If accusing vaccine critics of "conspiracy theorism" is the best defense for vaccines that you can think of, perhaps it's time you re-examine the issue? Seriously, is there anyone alive today who could possibly look at the US government/big business right now and assume that it's corruption-free?
@Becky Was your post about GMOs directed at me? Because I don't recall ever saying anything about GMOs. Also, you could not "school" me on 9/11.
@Taximom "Seriously, is there anyone alive today who could possibly look at the US government/big business right now and assume that it's corruption-free?"
There is a difference in believing the government does some underhanded things to believing the government is capable of doing something like conspiring to murder thousands of Americans on 9/11. It's like saying "Well, you don't think doctors are perfect do you? Some of them may cheat on their taxes or cheat on their spouses so how can you *not* believe they are implanting our children with microchips?"
Oliver Willis explained it well "...just willing to take that leap a little further than a responsible normal person would take it. For instance, it isn’t in dispute that the U.S. government has intervened in the affairs of foreign nations in order to produce results that are more in favor with us geopolitically. Now, the difference is between those of us who acknowledge known, uncomfortable facts and the conspiracy theorist who cites these cases as evidence of a globe-spanning conspiracy that controls the levers of power.
It really is that simple. You take something that is true, and use it as a launching pad into what is ludicrous. Then when challenged, someone like Jones can always refer to the true fact, and ask the interested party if they can believe “X” then why can’t they believe “Y” which is at least an adjacent set of ideas."
I think pointing out the conspiracy theories that some of these sites entertain is important because parents go to these sites looking for medical information. If my doctor believed in the kinds of things I posted earlier, I would find a new doctor. Their credibility *does* matter to me and the source where you get information that impacts the health and medical decisions of children is important. I guess some of you disagree and that's fine.