4 ms·

I think you’re giving them too much credit. I don’t think it’s based in science, or distrust of a “corrupt“ or untrustworthy system. It seems to be a combinati

by mft_ 7y ago

I think you’re giving them too much credit. I don’t think it’s based in science, or distrust of a “corrupt“ or untrustworthy system. It seems to be a combination of cult-like group-think, misplaced parental emotions, and social media-driven fear-mongering, all brought together by a determinedly anti-intellectual anti-science stance.

ianai 7y ago
The people in my life who are in this same category also clearly want to “know something no one else knows.” Saying no to something mainstream gives them the ability to “be above” the rest of us who follow the mainstream. It can be a kind of comfort in their circumstances.
spaginal 7y ago
You aren't giving them enough credit. If you want to solve a problem between two groups, understanding the underlying rational for their decisions is prudent and productive. Simply claiming they are idiots because you can't make the argument, doesn't solve the issue or push things any closer to a resolution. Think of it this way, there may be actual issues with vaccines that aren't being addressed because the current legal and political environment protects the vaccine companies from litigation and consequences. You also have a group think around vaccines that says they are all good, no matter what, take every shot on the schedule they tell you to take without question, they can't possibly be wrong or bad. This presents a problem in the debate also. What if the concerned parents only response to these issues is to stop taking the vaccines because concerns aren't being addressed? This would be a good time for everyone to step back and start having a discussion instead of shaming and flinging barbs.
takcjsoan 7y ago
Naw you’re wrong. I grew up unvaccinated, and for my parents it’s 100% a distrust of the pharma companies and modern medicine, and it’s really hard to blame them. The system is absolute shit, there are more bad actors than good actors -or the bad actors have overwhelmed the system in the US. I know they were wrong on the vaccine stance, but I do think their viewpoints are correct about most of modern medicine and I’m happy for the healthy criticism of it I have, in part due to them.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
scottLobster 7y ago
Clearly it's not based in science, no one in this thread has claimed that. As for the list of negative traits you mention, none of those are incompatible with distrust of a corrupt system. So I'm not sure what your point is. I can only assume that you think every anti-vaxxer would still be an anti-vaxxer even if the medical community had a 100% sterling record on everything and education was perfect. While that might certainly be true for some of them (Christian scientists and such), I have a hard time generalizing that to the movement as a whole.
specialist 7y ago
Orthogonally: Trust is hard when you don't understand the subject. I recently had the weirdest convo with a cardio nurse who doubted evolution. How does someone get trained and end up working in healthcare not believe in evolution?! I'm guessing that he's like a talented mechanic. Probably very good at the job. But can't wrap his head around anything meta like evolution. (Yes, this person is also deep into one of those Rock & Roll Jesus churches.)
mindfulgeek 7y ago
Who are you referring to when you say “them?”
- charles_f 7y ago
  Based on the two previous messages I am inferring they meant "people who hold an anti-vaccine sentiment".
  - mindfulgeek 7y ago
    What qualifies a sentiment as “anti-vaccine?” Not sure why this is downvoted. I’m genuinely curious. The perspective that having a sentiment puts someone into a group is one I haven’t considered and I would like to understand it more.
codingcthulhu 7y ago
I think it is exactly based in science. Clinical tests for vaccines do not follow golden standard that any other pharmaceutical products have to follow. Vaccines are never tested against inert placebo. No pharmacocynetic studies were ever done and are not required. Manufacturers are exempt form being liable. Any parents reporting any side effects are ridiculed. Epidemiological studies done on the subject are just bad. But if you portray people asking this question as "anti-intellectual anti-science cult-like group" then you won the discussion because you prevented any rational and scientific discussion from even taking a place. A job well done.

by mft_ 7y ago

ianai 7y ago

The people in my life who are in this same category also clearly want to “know something no one else knows.” Saying no to something mainstream gives them the ability to “be above” the rest of us who follow the mainstream. It can be a kind of comfort in their circumstances.

spaginal 7y ago

You aren't giving them enough credit. If you want to solve a problem between two groups, understanding the underlying rational for their decisions is prudent and productive. Simply claiming they are idiots because you can't make the argument, doesn't solve the issue or push things any closer to a resolution. Think of it this way, there may be actual issues with vaccines that aren't being addressed because the current legal and political environment protects the vaccine companies from litigation and consequences. You also have a group think around vaccines that says they are all good, no matter what, take every shot on the schedule they tell you to take without question, they can't possibly be wrong or bad. This presents a problem in the debate also. What if the concerned parents only response to these issues is to stop taking the vaccines because concerns aren't being addressed? This would be a good time for everyone to step back and start having a discussion instead of shaming and flinging barbs.

takcjsoan 7y ago

Naw you’re wrong. I grew up unvaccinated, and for my parents it’s 100% a distrust of the pharma companies and modern medicine, and it’s really hard to blame them. The system is absolute shit, there are more bad actors than good actors -or the bad actors have overwhelmed the system in the US. I know they were wrong on the vaccine stance, but I do think their viewpoints are correct about most of modern medicine and I’m happy for the healthy criticism of it I have, in part due to them.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

scottLobster 7y ago

Clearly it's not based in science, no one in this thread has claimed that. As for the list of negative traits you mention, none of those are incompatible with distrust of a corrupt system. So I'm not sure what your point is. I can only assume that you think every anti-vaxxer would still be an anti-vaxxer even if the medical community had a 100% sterling record on everything and education was perfect. While that might certainly be true for some of them (Christian scientists and such), I have a hard time generalizing that to the movement as a whole.

specialist 7y ago

Orthogonally: Trust is hard when you don't understand the subject. I recently had the weirdest convo with a cardio nurse who doubted evolution. How does someone get trained and end up working in healthcare not believe in evolution?! I'm guessing that he's like a talented mechanic. Probably very good at the job. But can't wrap his head around anything meta like evolution. (Yes, this person is also deep into one of those Rock & Roll Jesus churches.)

mindfulgeek 7y ago

Who are you referring to when you say “them?”

charles_f 7y ago
Based on the two previous messages I am inferring they meant "people who hold an anti-vaccine sentiment".
- mindfulgeek 7y ago
  What qualifies a sentiment as “anti-vaccine?” Not sure why this is downvoted. I’m genuinely curious. The perspective that having a sentiment puts someone into a group is one I haven’t considered and I would like to understand it more.

codingcthulhu 7y ago

I think it is exactly based in science. Clinical tests for vaccines do not follow golden standard that any other pharmaceutical products have to follow. Vaccines are never tested against inert placebo. No pharmacocynetic studies were ever done and are not required. Manufacturers are exempt form being liable. Any parents reporting any side effects are ridiculed. Epidemiological studies done on the subject are just bad. But if you portray people asking this question as "anti-intellectual anti-science cult-like group" then you won the discussion because you prevented any rational and scientific discussion from even taking a place. A job well done.