or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › new study on vaccination belief
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

new study on vaccination belief

post #1 of 139
Thread Starter 

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?


post #2 of 139

He also believes concerns about gmo's are part of this vast conspiracy theory.


Frankly I don't care why other families choose to not vaccinate, but I seriously doubt if you did a poll in here that you are going to get a lot of moon-landing denialists.

post #3 of 139

Yet another piece of "research" designed to marginalize non-vaxing parents. You'd think they would have better things to do with the time and money.

post #4 of 139

I bet when the author speaks, all you hear is "Baa baa baaaaa". No room for critical thinking or questions of any sort.

post #5 of 139

If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.  Elbert Hubbard.

post #6 of 139
post #7 of 139
'Conspiracy Theorist' is actually a slur that was propagated *on purpose* after the Warren Report specifically to marginalize.

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.
post #8 of 139
And I would say, no matter what the evidence shows, those that BELIEVE in a Dogma cannot be made to look @ the evidence.
post #9 of 139
Originally Posted by orangeorchids View Post

A conspiracy theory video. Thanks but no thanks. I agree with the findings of Dr Lewandowsky. As the website says close to the end:



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
post #10 of 139
Originally Posted by orangeorchids View Post


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
post #11 of 139
Moon landing? Don't you mean "New Mexico Landing?"

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.

post #12 of 139
These debates are useful as I refine my understanding of this issue continuously. Ultimately I can predict, but not with anywhere near 100% certainty where that will lead me, ultimately. I would say that is true for many here on both sides.

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.
post #13 of 139
Another thing this forum could be useful for is outbreak awareness. Probably not like Twitter, but if would make it here by & by.
post #14 of 139

post #15 of 139

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.”


Source: http://nocompulsoryvaccination.blogspot.com/2009/07/flu-is-not-biggest-danger-its-vaccine.html

Meryl posted this article to the AVN blog and twitter 

"“A cabal of interbreeding families is seeking to impose a global fascist dictatorship of total human control.”

“The Illuminati plan for the world includes a mass cull of the population and the microchipping of every man, woman and child. Microchips would allow everyone to be tracked 24/7, but it goes much further than that.

Computer technology communicating with the chips has the potential to manipulate people mentally, emotionally and physically. This could be done en masse or individually through the chip’s unique transmitter-receiver signal. Killing someone from a distance would be a synch.”


Make no mistake folks, this measles ‘outbreak’ was orchestrated for one reason and one reason only – to force the issue of compulsory vaccination.”


Source: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/AVN/message/37076"

She also denies that HIV causes AIDS (another conspiracy theory) 

“But the court is definitely out on both the existence of an HIV virus and the connection between what is seen under the electron microscope (whatever that may be) with the symptoms we’ve come to call AIDS”.

Source: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/AVN/message/41124

She also linked a video to her site that claimed that the flu vaccine is a secret contraceptive. 

“Yes, I agree! While we are already seen as rabid, idiotic fringe-dwellers by so many in the mainstream, it does our argument no good at all to bring in conspiracy theories which, though we may subscribe to them, are unprovable."

Source: AVN Yahoo! message 38725

Next up is VINE or Vaccine Information Network who, among  other things, believes there are "government child snatching agencies" 

 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. 




post #16 of 139

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.
post #17 of 139

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"?

 The FDA policy (unchanged since 1992) places responsibility on the producer or manufacturer to assure the safety of the food, explicitly relying on the producer/manufacturer to do so: “Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the producer of a new food to evaluate the safety of the food and assure that the safety requirement of section 402(a)(1) of the act is met.” So it is the company, not any independent scientific review, providing the research that is relied on to assert safety.

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.



 • Dr. Thierry Vrain, a former soil biologist and genetic scientist, worked for Agriculture Canada for 30 years. He was the designated spokesperson to assure the public of the safety of GMO crops. Since retiring 10 years ago, after taking into account scientific evidence ignored by most of the bio-tech industry promoters and government regulators, Dr. Vrain has reversed that position and now warns of the dangers from GMOs.

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.

post #18 of 139

For anyone interested in making a difference, there is a worldwide March Against Monsanto coming soon. Find a location near you!


post #19 of 139

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?   :rotflmao 

post #20 of 139

@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. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › new study on vaccination belief