C'mon, now. That's the whole point of the thread. Non-vaccinators = conspiracy theorists. That's the whole "argument". I might have a foil hat on my head but I can still read.
new study on vaccination belief - Page 4
No, the argument is that there are more conspiracy theorists among people who distrust vaccines than among people who believe in them. It's not saying that if you don't believe in vaccines, then obviously you personally must believe these crazy things too.
Again, it's kind of common sense. How many people who believe the government is behind 9/11 or climate change is a hoax are going to be willing to follow government advice on vaccines?
The original study was looking at the role of conspiracy ideation and political conservatism and liberalism in the rejection of science.
This thread is making me feel barfy.
Seriously, is this what we've evolved into? Name calling? "You're a nutjob!!"
How does any of this have anything to do with vaccine debate? CALLING ME A CONSPIRACY THEORIST IS NOT AN ARGUMENT.
Losing faith in humanity by the second. Good thing I believe in Aliens. Next time they abduct me (which of course the government will try and cover up) I'm going to ask them to keep me on their planet.
Ah dalia, I think you are cool and very much not a nut job.
Edited by kathymuggle - 10/4/13 at 5:57pm
I'm afraid you have already made up your mind (see link in post #1 which help explains why people against vaccines oppose science). There's no point in trying to convince you otherwise. Moreover, you have already made a predictable statement in post 41, implying I'm some kind of conspirator.
Lol. You are funny.
You seem to have come to some awfully quick conclusions for a newbie.
Not surprisingly, you did not answer my question asking how many (what percentage) of non-vaxxers are conspiracy theorists. Saying non-vaxxers are often conspiracy theorist is a meaningless statement without some numbers.
ETA: I reread post 41. Post 41 clarifies my intent in posting the link I posted. It has nothing do with seeing you as a conspirator….it is kind of odd you leapt to that conclusion.
Edited by kathymuggle - 10/5/13 at 5:33am
In the National geographic documentary, it is stated how conspiracy theorists feel the need to find an explanation to everything, even if the explanation is over simplistic.
This is a similarity with those who are against vaccines. Without realizing it, their explanations are oversimplistic. Why? Because it is not based on any real (scientific) evidence. And when the scientific evidence is not available, conspiracy theories arise.
As a defense, they refer to themselves as 'not being mainstream'. Well I'm not mainstream, I'm an atheist and I bet several members cringed when they read this last sentence (and will probably judge me for it)
Substitute any religious belief for either "conspiracy theorists" or "those who are against vaccines," and you'll see exactly how ridiculous--and insulting--your statements are.
One of the issues with vaccines is that in can get pretty tricky to debate. I find that debating GMO's is harder. There's a lot of propaganda out there that is plain false. However, it is of concern that Monsanto management has had seats on top of the FDA. More can be said about the topic (good and bad things about GMOs say) but again, this thread is not the place.
Thank you for answering me. On one hand, I am glad to see you are concerned about Monsanto and the FDA. We all should be concerned. However, most of the posts on this thread were focused on conspiracy theories like 9/11 and the moon. While I do enjoy talking about them, I felt the best "conspiracy theory" to debate here would have been GMOs. After all, the author did lump GMOs together with the other conspiracies, so it would have been right on topic!
It seems like the attention was deliberately directed to 9/11 and the moon for some reason. GMOs and vaccines go hand in hand, so it would have been nice to talk about that instead. Sigh, you know what this means.......I'm probably going to start a thread about this.
This is a misinterpretation. GMO's is an important topic, but a difficult one to debate. When I wrote that there's a lot of propaganda out there, I meant there's a lot of conspiracy theories based on GMO's and I'm pretty sure that conspiracy arguments would be brought up here if the topic is discussed. However, some real concerns do exist, one needs to understand the difference
Please. I'm not stupid.
If the point of the thread is not to discredit by association, then what is the point of the thread?
Important highlights from the film Genetic Roulette:
*43:34 to find out what happened to Arpad Pusztai. He was given a 3million dollar grant to research GMOs, and his findings were shocking. What happened to him was even worse.
*43:20 For you Canadians (Kathy ) see Shiv Chopra, former Health Canada Microbiologist.
*13:02 Leaky Gut and GMOs--Michelle Perro, MD, named one of "America's Top Pediatricians".
.......................Below is my favorite conspiracy fact................................
*6:00 Lawsuit Challenges FDA policy on GMOs...lawyer discovered the FDA had been lying about GMOs since 1992. FDA claimed there was an "overwhelming consensus" on the safety of GMOs, and were considered safe. However, the overwhelming consensus within their OWN staff was that the GMO foods could NOT be presumed safe. These scientists urged their superiors to acquire long term studies but were ignored..........Why???
Well, at the time, Michael Taylor, Monsanto's former attorney, was the person in charge of policy at the FDA. Later, he became Monsanto's Vice President, and currently, he is back at the FDA in charge of food safety!!!!!
Here is an example of good, honest researchers, who have to listen to a corrupt person in a higher up position.
*I will be editing this post to include highlights from the film*
*This is how I've chosen to spend my Saturday night.... I hope it wasn't it vain lol!*
Edited by BeckyBird - 10/5/13 at 6:05pm
Health claims related to GMOs are tricky to discuss in part because the technology has only been around since the early 90s but currently, they are considered safe.
Considered safe by whom? Do you know anything about this?
The label of a conspiracy is not given based on the topic or its importance, but based on the arguments used. This is the same type of faulty logic that many people use when attacking vaccines!!
I don't think there is anything faulty about it, but you seem to.