8 Answers

• Reputation: 474 Q&A: 9 0 7 165 13 0 Classifieds: 2 0 what's this? Moderator Anthony Hecht is a moderator on Questionland Seattle Follow Following 0

  11 1 It's definitely a hard argument to get into—it's become one of those take-it-on-faith kinds of things that people (on both sides) get very defensive and emotional about. Especially when it's about their own kids. I find that simple, casual appeals to straightforward ideas work best. That there's never been a single study, anywhere, that showed a link between vaccines and autism, but dozens and dozens that have shown no link. That the amount of mercury that was used in vaccines (isn't anymore) was less than in a can of tuna. Stuff like that. Frontline had a good episode on the controversy, evenhanded and fair, though I thought the conclusions were pretty inescapable. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/ Anthony Hecht answered in News & Politics about 1 year ago | Report Comment on this answer Enter your comment or ask a new question preview THIS IS A PREVIEW: Click "Post" to submit it or "Edit" to make changes. edit Please wait… This could take a minute if the tubes are clogged.

  Share this answer with a friend:

• Reputation: 1962 Q&A: 32 0 1 1965 663 0 Classifieds: 0 0 what's this? Follow Following 2

  9 1 If they don't have kids, you can say anything you like. If they have kids, do not discuss it. Change the subject. Example: Parent: I was worried about some of the rumors I heard so we didn't vaccinate Jasper. But he caught mumps at school. I thought all the other kids would be vaccinated and there wouldn't be any mumps! What's wrong with those people? [I am not making this up] You: I heard they got that oil leak to stop. Do you think it will work? Trust me. You aren't getting paid for this so it isn't worth your time to rub somebody's nose in their denial. The reason it has come up recently is the guy who started it, Andrew Wakefield, has just had his license to practice medicine in the UK taken away for various misconduct related to his vaccine conspiracy nonsense. elenchos answered in News & Politics about 1 year ago | Report 1 comment by keshmeshi… 0 0 The Lancet also recently retracted their earlier claims of a link. keshmeshi commented about 1 year ago | Report Enter your comment or ask a new question preview THIS IS A PREVIEW: Click "Post" to submit it or "Edit" to make changes. edit Please wait… This could take a minute if the tubes are clogged.

  Share this answer with a friend:

• Reputation: 6000 Q&A: 113 0 11 4226 721 3 Classifieds: 0 0 what's this? Follow Following 6

  7 0 You could mention that the doctor who started the whole thing off has been caught repeatedly faking his data and has been decertified in his native Britain. He's not a doctor anymore, and his studies did not show the results that he claimed they did. They were faked. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683671.ece http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/may/24/mmr-doctor-andrew-wakefield-struck-off Fnarf answered in News & Politics about 1 year ago | Report Comment on this answer Enter your comment or ask a new question preview THIS IS A PREVIEW: Click "Post" to submit it or "Edit" to make changes. edit Please wait… This could take a minute if the tubes are clogged.

  Share this answer with a friend:

• Reputation: 751 Q&A: 8 0 13 400 69 0 Classifieds: 0 0 what's this? Follow Following 0

  6 1 Tell them you think children catching life-threatening diseases is good for the species, because it kills off the weak so they don't grow up and breed. If enough kids die, the children of the survivors will have no need of vaccines. What? It's true. Thank them for sacrificing their children for the good of us all. I'm sure they'll appreciate it. And if their kids do get sick, tell them not to give them antibiotics. We've overused antibiotics to the point where they are becoming less and less effective, and they can kill your kid (anaphylactic shock), although of course that's now been established as a desirable outcome. If even one bacteria survives the antibiotic, you could have a superbug epidemic on your hands. Who could stand the guilt? Better safe than sorry. BasementDweller3 answered in News & Politics about 1 year ago | Report 1 comment by Rev.Enant… 0 0 "Tell them you think children catching life-threatening diseases is good for the species, because it kills off the weak so they don't grow up and breed. If enough kids die, the children of the survivors will have no need of vaccines. What? It's true." One of the very reasons anti-vacc people sometimes cite as why they refuse vaccines: all those millenia that humanity thrived without these shots and the weak were left behind. These vacc-dependent generations are just dragging humanity's potential down ;) Just sayin' Rev.Enant commented about 1 year ago | Report Enter your comment or ask a new question preview THIS IS A PREVIEW: Click "Post" to submit it or "Edit" to make changes. edit Please wait… This could take a minute if the tubes are clogged.

  Share this answer with a friend:

• Reputation: 2397 Q&A: 49 0 8 1421 164 0 Classifieds: 0 0 what's this? Follow Following 1

  2 1 It's definitely an argument worth getting into, because idiots who don't vaccinate their kids are creating a public health risk. As for the best approach, I mostly agree with Anthony. There is an abundance of evidence that shows vaccinations are both safe and essential, so a fact-based argument should be enough. But, if that didn't work, I wouldn't hesitate to pile on the shame for not only risking their own kids' lives, but endangering all of us. And, now, there is the exposed quack in the UK who faked his data, which really should put a stop to the idiocy (though, it probably won't, as people who are into conspiracies will probably think the removal of the quack's license to practice medicine is just part of the conspiracy). Mahtli69 answered in News & Politics about 1 year ago | Report Comment on this answer Enter your comment or ask a new question preview THIS IS A PREVIEW: Click "Post" to submit it or "Edit" to make changes. edit Please wait… This could take a minute if the tubes are clogged.

  Share this answer with a friend:

• Reputation: 212 Q&A: 1 0 5 110 23 1 Classifieds: 0 0 what's this? Follow Following 0

  0 0 http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ has a lot of very good rhetoric and studies to cite about the safety of vaccines and dangers of non-vaccination. Mike Smith answered in News & Politics about 1 year ago | Report Comment on this answer Enter your comment or ask a new question preview THIS IS A PREVIEW: Click "Post" to submit it or "Edit" to make changes. edit Please wait… This could take a minute if the tubes are clogged.

  Share this answer with a friend:

• Reputation: 1033 Q&A: 18 0 7 599 86 4 Classifieds: 0 0 what's this? Follow Following 1 Arsenic7

  2 3 My first response would simply be to appeal to common sense. I'd mention that doctors and scientists don't buy into this conspiracy and that it's biggest supporters seem to be actors and stay at home mothers. Then I'd ask them whom they trust more when it comes to medicine, their doctor, who treated them with antibiotics and x-rays or their mother, who spit on a napkin and wiped the blood off your elbow? Arguing the specific science gets kind of dicey since these people aren't likely to care much and don't appreciate the idea that real science (the conclusions of all the studies that have been done)is different from things that a scientist (the quack doctor) might say. As an aside... As someone versed somewhat in science, science denial has been a personal pet peeve of mine, lately, and a subject I find myself thinking about a lot since there really is no true answer to the problem beyond education...and not everyone can or wants to go through with the sort of education necessary to understand what science is and why it's important. The only other solution is to foster a culture in which scientists and other people of knowledge are somewhat revered and respected. We DO appreciate successful scientists in this country but only when they produce something fun or exciting or life saving. Arsenic7 answered in News & Politics about 1 year ago | Report 6 comments by CleverScreenName, Cedarthvader, and Arsenic7… 0 0 I think you're missing a key emotional element when you ask a person (woman, most likely) to tell you whether she trusts her doc or her mother more. That could derail the conversation in a whole new fun direction. CleverScreenName commented about 1 year ago | Report 0 0 So I'm totally pro-vaccination and totally pro-science but I just wanted to let you know that I know from experience that docs are not infallible. As someone who has been given drugs that were contraindicated for my condition and as someone who has had doctors fail me again and again, and suggest drugs in place of lifestyle and diet changes, I just want you to know that blindly trusting docs is dangerous too. Not because they're the voice of science, but because they're human and there's a lot that hasn't been discovered yet. Just sayin. Cedarthvader commented about 1 year ago | Report 0 0 Doctors can fail you, it's true. Mothers can fail you. But when it comes to mothering, I trust a mother over a doctor and when it comes to doctoring I trust a doctor over a mother. If you don't, then what need do you have of both when you could do with one? Arsenic7 commented about 1 year ago | Report 0 0 That's extraordinarily patronizing, arsenic. We may agree about vaccines, but I dislike arguments from authority. Implying that MDs are inherently more right winds up working to justify all sorts of shit that we humans don't want or need. Lee commented about 1 year ago | Report 0 0 Lee I'm not arguing that they are "more right" as that would mean I have some knowledge that no one else does. I'm not even saying we shouldn't question them. But it's a fact of life that people who think more about a subject, study more about a subject, tend to have better insight into questions and problems concerning said subject. Whether you treat that person as a ruler or an authority or just an important source of information is an entirely different matter. Arsenic7 commented about 1 year ago | Report 0 0 "We DO appreciate successful scientists in this country but only when they produce something fun or exciting or life saving" you meant to say 'profitable' Rev.Enant commented about 1 year ago | Report Enter your comment or ask a new question preview THIS IS A PREVIEW: Click "Post" to submit it or "Edit" to make changes. edit Please wait… This could take a minute if the tubes are clogged.

  Share this answer with a friend:

• Reputation: 3723 Q&A: 109 0 27 1716 713 0 Classifieds: 0 0 what's this? Follow Following 1

  1 3 Uhm, if you really need to interfere and not let people have their own opinions... how about reach out with understanding and sympathy. Research both sides of the story. And then, more importantly: understand you're talking about parenting when you enter this conversation, and not science. Might as well bring up whether they tell their kid about Santa Claus or god or not - - trying to treat it as a casual science conversation with a "right" answer? makes YOU stupid. Rev.Enant answered in News & Politics about 1 year ago | Report Comment on this answer Enter your comment or ask a new question preview THIS IS A PREVIEW: Click "Post" to submit it or "Edit" to make changes. edit Please wait… This could take a minute if the tubes are clogged.

  Share this answer with a friend: