3 ms·
Step 1 would be for the medical establishment to acknowledge that there are risks and potential problems with vaccines. Jenny McCarthy is a symptom of the decl
by abe_m 2y ago
Step 1 would be for the medical establishment to acknowledge that there are risks and potential problems with vaccines. Jenny McCarthy is a symptom of the decline in trust of the medical establishment, not the cause. The medical establishment's response to vaccine hesitancy is to discount potential harms, and refuse to honestly engage with the potential draw backs. Any hint of skepticism is met with articles like this one. That isn't the way to build trust. Also implying anyone questioning whether they're being told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, is a dummy, is not the way to build trust.
- jmye 2y agoWhy, specifically, do you think a bunch of people with no medical training and no ability to understand medical literature should be “listened to” about things they absolutely do not, at all, understand? Sorry that it makes you feel bad to be told you don’t know what you’re talking about, but the fact, ultimately, remains.
- abe_m 2y agoThat attitude isn't going to build any trust in the system. You've made a number of errors in your presentation and internal biases: 1) You assume all people with questions have no medical training, which is untrue. 2) You assume people are too stupid to see when they are having problems and getting answers from their doctors that don't make sense. If a plane crashes in a field, a lay person can see the twisted metal on the ground and see the plane crashed. It may take a metallurgist to find the origin of the initial failure that lead to the crash, but not to see there was a crash. If the answer from the expert is just that planes never crash, it doesn't take too much intelligence to realize you're being lied to. 3) Telling people who don't trust you that they are too stupid to realize how right you are is going to do nothing to improve the rate of people following your advice or instructions.
- jmye 2y ago> 1) You assume all people with questions have no medical training, which is untrue. They, as a rule, have no relevant medical training. I get that you think a random RN having a take on vaccines is worth listening to, but they aren’t. > 2) You assume people are too stupid to see when they are having problems and getting answers from their doctors that don't make sense. I assume that people who make stupid analogies because they don’t understand the baseline issues are too stupid to reach relevant conclusions. This isn’t, in any way, shape, or form, like seeing thousands of crashed planes and being told planes don’t crash. It’s seeing crashed planes, deciding that aliens did it, and then refusing to listen to experts when they tell you that that plane was pilot error, this one was an unsecured load, and the one over there hit some birds. Because you saw a YouTube that said it was aliens. You’ve started from an erroneous, bad conclusion, and instead of listening to the people telling you what actually happened, you’ve doubled down and now you’re plugging your fingers in your ears and screaming. That’s why no one cares what you think, or wants to listen to you. It’s because you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, and you’re not apparently, capable of even having a rational conversation about it. > 3) Telling people who don't trust you that they are too stupid to realize how right you are is going to do nothing to improve the rate of people following your advice or instructions. Nothing is. The only acceptable conclusion to you is being told you’re right. There is no amount of evidence or expertise anyone could ever provide that would lead you to conclude that you were wrong. It’s your personal dogma. Hopefully your kids don’t get polio because you thought reading some Facebook posts made you an unassailable expert.