Help! My mother saw the movie "Vaxxed"

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Yes. Likely a slap on the wrist and instructions not to blog anymore. Be real. The COO isn't getting fired for this.

He's the COO of the Wellness Institute, an offshoot clinic that specializes in alternative medicine, not of the entire organization. I don't think his stake in the Cleveland Clinic is big enough to just get a slap on the wrist. The medical community is losing their **** about this and it's a big black eye for the CC

Members don't see this ad.
 
He's the COO of the Wellness Institute, an offshoot clinic that specializes in alternative medicine, not of the entire organization. I don't think his stake in the Cleveland Clinic is big enough to just get a slap on the wrist. The medical community is losing their **** about this and it's a big black eye for the CC

I agree. I'm hoping I'm wrong, but based on what I'm seeing, he's not going anywhere.
 
Sigh, I just got bit by rabid dogs while walking past an echo chambers :(
So you enjoy being an ignorant dingus. Roger that. On ignore you go.
Senpai, I am actually for vaccine. The original was debunked. But there was no article proving that there was no link, because guess what? Proving a negative is fool's errand outside of theoretical disciples. If you are incapable of convincing people to vaccinate without using fallacies, too bad but don't shoot the messenger! I thought you were better than tis! I am breaking up!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who do you think you are, friend?

That... That isn't how science works little guy
Timmy, just to make sure we are talking about science, not "science," please state how science works!
Yes, you cannot prove a negative because things aren't automatically assumed to be causally-linked until proven otherwise?? By that logic, literally every single thing in the world directly causes autism unless we can prove that it doesn't (which is an absurd stance).
That is a very intelligent question! I would say "no" ^_^

But I am being generous so let me help you with the obvious answer: If one makes the claim, one has to prove it. Next time when someone tell you to prove that god does not exist, don't jump into that trap.

I'm glad that you find widespread ignorance about legitimate health crises edifying for your ego.
See, this is classic projection. You are doing the spreading of whatever and you assume that I must be doing so too. I only do this because of some brat making a thread making fun of their mother while being supported by her.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Sigh, I just got bit by rabid dogs while walking past an echo chambers :(

Senpai, I am actually for vaccine. The original was debunked. But there was no article proving that there was no link, because guess what? Proving a negative is fool's errand outside of theoretical disciples. If you are incapable of convincing people to vaccinate without using fallacies, too bad but don't shoot the messenger! I thought you were better than tis! I am breaking up!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who do you think you are, friend?


Timmy, just to make sure we are talking about science, not "science," please state how science works!

That is a very intelligent question! I would say "no" ^_^

But I am being generous so let me help you with the obvious answer: If one makes the claim, one has to prove it. Next time when someone tell you to prove that god does not exist, don't jump into that trap.


See, this is classic projection. You are doing the spreading of whatever and you assume that I must be doing so too. I only do this because of some brat making a thread making fun of their mother while being supported by her.

Ugh, so much cringe
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Sigh, I just got bit by rabid dogs while walking past an echo chambers :(

Senpai, I am actually for vaccine. The original was debunked. But there was no article proving that there was no link, because guess what? Proving a negative is fool's errand outside of theoretical disciples. If you are incapable of convincing people to vaccinate without using fallacies, too bad but don't shoot the messenger! I thought you were better than tis! I am breaking up!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who do you think you are, friend?


Timmy, just to make sure we are talking about science, not "science," please state how science works!

That is a very intelligent question! I would say "no" ^_^

But I am being generous so let me help you with the obvious answer: If one makes the claim, one has to prove it. Next time when someone tell you to prove that god does not exist, don't jump into that trap.


See, this is classic projection. You are doing the spreading of whatever and you assume that I must be doing so too. I only do this because of some brat making a thread making fun of their mother while being supported by her.
Brat??
Making fun???

#feelingsHurt #needSafeSpace

Look buddy, I have younger siblings who I'd like to see vaccinated.
 
You can reject a null hypothesis. You're probably thinking of affirming the consequent. You also sound like a total neckbeard.
Oh and I forgot about this garbage somehow. lolz. If you think that is relevant to this context, I don't think null hypothesis means what you think it means.
 
Brat??
Making fun???

#feelingsHurt #needSafeSpace

Look buddy, I have younger siblings who I'd like to see vaccinated.
Or you could've just picked a fight with your mom during a family gathering. Am I a psychic? If you wanted to get your siblings vaccinated, then you manipulate her into getting your siblings vaccinated. Nut let's be real here, your main objective here is win the argument. The first reply you got was literally "your mom is stupid and should be euthanized" and you seemed quite jovial toward it.

"Oh but it was just sarcasm!" Wanna hear some rape jokes?
 
I've heard the cancer cure hoax as well. Vaccines causing autism and secret cancer cures are both ridiculous notions not worth entertaining except to dispel them.

That being said, I think there are underlying problems that make these myths so believable, or so implicitly convincing. One of them is that a great portion of the public does not see any reason to trust experts (scientists and physicians) when it comes to their health because they believe those experts are profiting from selling "lies". I think in harder economic times such as these, this institutional mistrust is exacerbated, and average people might begin to see the rich doctor with all of his jargon and authority as just someone else who thinks they can get the better of them. Second, when you regularly have stories like Shkreli's AIDS drug markup, Theranos making everything up and robbing everyone's money, and the EpiPen fiasco alongside more benign problems like scientists failing to communicate the "fail forward" modus operandi of science properly or just being inaccessible, arrogant, or untransparent in general where their work is concerned it is not far fetched that one can begin to lose faith in the institution of science. It doesn't help, of course, that a major political goal of a very significant portion of American government is to convince regular people that scientists are liars and frauds masquerading as busybody knowitalls.

Not all that relevant to this thread, but I'm just saying as future healthcare/science professionals we should see these problems as symptoms of deeper institutional rot rather than just surface level problems with people being idiots.

Doesn't mean that lots of people aren't idiots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
I had a long discussion with my mother and she seems convinced that there is a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

What can I tell her to convince her otherwise? Saying that Wakefield's medical license got revoked didn't seem to work... :/

I have taken to congratulating these individuals for joining the fight against overpopulation. And I am 100% sincere in this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Oh and I forgot about this garbage somehow. lolz. If you think that is relevant to this context, I don't think null hypothesis means what you think it means.

It is extremely relevant within the context of you trying to sound smart by attempting to regurgitate something you misunderstood regarding causality from your philosophy 101 class. Go pretend to be smart somewhere else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
It is extremely relevant within the context of you trying to sound smart by attempting to regurgitate something you misunderstood regarding causality from your philosophy 101 class. Go pretend to be smart somewhere else.
Projection 101!

No you dolt, the context was that you cannot prove the statement "X does not cause Y" by collecting data, which is the whole paradigm of the entity we call science.

What you were suggesting was that we can prove "X does not cause Y" by showing that the process of proving "X causes/correlates to Y" is bogus. All it does is saying that whoever did it was an idiot/fraud.

Now be grateful I've just taught you something new.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
While I agree that the original work was bogus, one cannot prove a negative. Two wrongs do not make a right. Be prepared to be vexed if you show someone like me those "evidences." Being a contrarian is fun ^_^
That's why we use p values in order to reject or accept the null hypothesis. In this case, we would say something like "because the p-value is greater than .05, we cannot reject the null hypothesis." The burden of proof isn't on us to disprove the assertion. It's on you to prove it. Contrarian or not, your argument doesn't work in statistics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Projection 101!

No you dolt, the context was that you cannot prove the statement "X does not cause Y" by collecting data, which is the whole paradigm of the entity we call science.

What you were suggesting was that we can prove "X does not cause Y" by showing that the process of proving "X causes/correlates to Y" is bogus. All it does is saying that whoever did it was an idiot/fraud.

Now be grateful I've just taught you something new.

http://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart

Google "affirming the consequent." That isn't what the scientific method is based on You should brush up on your epistemology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
:claps::claps::claps::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::biglove::biglove::clap::banana::banana::clap::clap:


I have taken to congratulating these individuals for joining the fight against overpopulation. And I am 100% sincere in this.
 

Attachments

  • banana[1].gif
    banana[1].gif
    1.6 KB · Views: 30
  • banana[1].gif
    banana[1].gif
    1.6 KB · Views: 30
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Or you could've just picked a fight with your mom during a family gathering. Am I a psychic? If you wanted to get your siblings vaccinated, then you manipulate her into getting your siblings vaccinated. Nut let's be real here, your main objective here is win the argument. The first reply you got was literally "your mom is stupid and should be euthanized" and you seemed quite jovial toward it.

"Oh but it was just sarcasm!" Wanna hear some rape jokes?
Yowza!
Discussion was not in a family gathering.
You're not psychic.
I despise manipulation.
No, I'd really like my sisters to be safe (they're little).
And this ":eek:" means "eek."

eek
ēk/
exclamation
informal
  1. used as an expression of alarm, horror, or surprise.


    :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Yowza!
Discussion was not in a family gathering.
You're not psychic.
I despise manipulation.
No, I'd really like my sisters to be safe (they're little).
And this ":eek:" means "eek."

eek
ēk/
exclamation
informal
  1. used as an expression of alarm, horror, or surprise.


    :)
Just ignore him. He's a pseudo-intellectual who comes around these parts with a chip on his shoulder for god knows what reason. Maybe he's constantly going through life feeling like a failure or didn't get enough affirmation from mommy or daddy? Anyways, all he does is troll these forums being a "contrarian". He had a thread a while ago about a new format for the MCAT that everybody shat on because the entire premise was ridiculous. Looks like he crawled out of hiding. If you'll notice, he's constantly accusing others of projection to get a rise out them although it's pretty easy to see who's really projecting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Yowza!
Discussion was not in a family gathering.
You're not psychic.
I despise manipulation.
No, I'd really like my sisters to be safe (they're little).
And this ":eek:" means "eek."

eek
ēk/
exclamation
informal
  1. used as an expression of alarm, horror, or surprise.


    :)

You know that I can easily check the list of "likes" on that first comment right? I mean, you can lie but be smart about it. Good thing you cannot undo it.

Please. Why can't you be honest on an anonymous board?

http://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart

Google "affirming the consequent." That isn't what the scientific method is based on You should brush up on your epistemology.
Nice straw man there. What does it have anything to do with the "mountains of evidence" showing that vaccine does not cause autism? Hmm, that's right. Both are trash.
Just ignore him. He's a pseudo-intellectual who comes around these parts with a chip on his shoulder for god knows what reason. Maybe he's constantly going through life feeling like a failure or didn't get enough affirmation from mommy or daddy? Anyways, all he does is troll these forums being a "contrarian". He had a thread a while ago about a new format for the MCAT that everybody shat on because the entire premise was ridiculous. Looks like he crawled out of hiding. If you'll notice, he's constantly accusing others of projection to get a rise out them although it's pretty easy to see who's really projecting.

You are right. It is very easy to see who is projecting ;)

Here, let me educate you. The first one who brings up motives behind the arguments is the one who are projecting ^_^

For example: in this thread, the one accusing someone else of spreading propaganda, of trying to be a smartass. You see, I never attack the person first, only the arguments. It's not my problem if you emotionally attached to it. But once you start it, be prepare to be hurt. You know that I am right when it works :)

I am so sorry.
 
In my humble opinion, those that are ideologically entrenched against vaccines (the super VAXXED crowd) won't be swayed by facts alone. They reject the absolute authority presented to them by the scientific crowd. Your best bet is to treat the person you are arguing with as an equal, listen to them respectfully, and be firm, tactful and polite. Throwing a book of facts at them doesn't work, believe me i've tried!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
In my humble opinion, those that are ideologically entrenched against vaccines (the super VAXXED crowd) won't be swayed by facts alone. They reject the absolute authority presented to them by the scientific crowd. Your best bet is to treat the person you are arguing with as an equal, listen to them respectfully, and be firm, tactful and polite. Throwing a book of facts at them doesn't work, believe me i've tried!

You cannot be so sure about that. The motivation of those anti-vaxxed is that of their children's welfare. I don't think it is their interest to engage in intellectual arguments. It's more natural to prefer to be alive than to be right. Plus,

They reject the absolute authority presented to them by the scientific crowd.
Maybe, just maybe, that has already been addressed in the propaganda that infected them? I mean, if I were the one who did the anti-vaxxed campaign, the first thing I would do is tell people about the "conspiracy." You don't win that arguments by saying the same thing that the propagandist expected.

And just a thought, maybe if you care so much about the issue, you should actually read the original faulty arguments and counter them, the original not the one narrated by the people on your side? If you assume your opponents being stupid, it can bite you in the ass. Case in point, I bet the OP and everyone else (me included, I am not invested in this issue) haven't even watched the movie. How can you win something if you don't even know what the hell you are up against?
 
You cannot be so sure about that. The motivation of those anti-vaxxed is that of their children's welfare. I don't think it is their interest to engage in intellectual arguments. It's more natural to prefer to be alive than to be right. Plus,


Maybe, just maybe, that has already been addressed in the propaganda that infected them? I mean, if I were the one who did the anti-vaxxed campaign, the first thing I would do is tell people about the "conspiracy." You don't win that arguments by saying the same thing that the propagandist expected.

And just a thought, maybe if you care so much about the issue, you should actually read the original faulty arguments and counter them, the original not the one narrated by the people on your side? If you assume your opponents being stupid, it can bite you in the ass. Case in point, I bet the OP and everyone else (me included, I am not invested in this issue) haven't even watched the movie. How can you win something if you don't even know what the hell you are up against?
If you've spent any time with immunology, you should be able to counter anything in the film. For the sake of my mental health, I would prefer not to watch it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
If you've spent any time with immunology, you should be able to counter anything in the film. For the sake of my mental health, I would prefer not to watch it.

The entire film is based on a "whistleblower" study done at the CDC that shows a disproportionate number of African American males get autism after the MMR vaccine than white males. The paper appeared in an open-access journal called Translational Neurodegeneration and, much like Wakefield's Lancet paper, was fully retracted after undisclosed conflicts of interest were discovered, leading the peer review team to look more closely at the data and call into question the results.

That's it. That's what it's based on. A retracted paper with questionable (*cough*fake*cough*) data and authors with undisclosed financial interests. Totally reliable.

There's a reason Netflix classifies it as a thriller instead of a documentary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
If you've spent any time with immunology, you should be able to counter anything in the film. For the sake of my mental health, I would prefer not to watch it.
So you haven't watched it. So pray tell, what do I counter? Do you think you are smarter than Wakefield? I am serious. He may be a crook but do you really think any of us here is smarter than him. Do you even know what the Lancet is? Did you know that it took 12 years to retract that paper? What was the exactly basis for his downfall? I bet you it wasn't immunology, if only it was that easy. I bet he knew about immunology more than all of us here combined.

So even though I haven't watched it either, there is a good chance that you wouldn't be able to counter anything in that film using immunology.

The entire film is based on a "whistleblower" study done at the CDC that shows a disproportionate number of African American males get autism after the MMR vaccine than white males. The paper appeared in an open-access journal called Translational Neurodegeneration and, much like Wakefield's Lancet paper, was fully retracted after undisclosed conflicts of interest were discovered, leading the peer review team to look more closely at the data and call into question the results.

That's it. That's what it's based on. A retracted paper with questionable (*cough*fake*cough*) data and authors with undisclosed financial interests. Totally reliable.

There's a reason Netflix classifies it as a thriller instead of a documentary.

So, did you watch it? That is the million dollars question. I ask because I just swung about wiki to see what it was and this sounds suspiciously familiar.
 
So you haven't watched it. So pray tell, what do I counter? Do you think you are smarter than Wakefield? I am serious. He may be a crook but do you really think any of us here is smarter than him. Do you even know what the Lancet is? Did you know that it took 12 years to retract that paper? What was the exactly basis for his downfall? I bet you it wasn't immunology, if only it was that easy. I bet he knew about immunology more than all of us here combined.

So even though I haven't watched it either, there is a good chance that you wouldn't be able to counter anything in that film using immunology.



So, did you watch it? That is the million dollars question. I ask because I just swung about wiki to see what it was and this sounds suspiciously familiar.

You're missing the point. Whether or not I'm smarter than Wakefield is irrelevant. All of the work of disproving and delegitimizing him has already been done by the wider scientific community. I only need to know why. I'm arguing against antivaxers who have never taken a midlevel bio course, let alone immunology. I only need to be more informed about the science to win an argument using facts.
 
You're missing the point. Whether or not I'm smarter than Wakefield is irrelevant. All of the work of disproving and delegitimizing him has already been done by the wider scientific community. I only need to know why. I'm arguing against antivaxers who have never taken a midlevel bio course, let alone immunology. I only need to be more informed about the science to win an argument using facts.
You have already won the argument. I mean, do you take pleasure in winning an argument with a redneck? Ok... I thought that the goal was to make him get his kids vaccinated.

And I am telling you that they did not discredit him using immunology.
 
You have already won the argument. I mean, do you take pleasure in winning an argument with a redneck? Ok... I thought that the goal was to make him get his kids vaccinated.

And I am telling you that they did not discredit him using immunology.
Rednecks vaccinate at very high rates, actually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You have already won the argument. I mean, do you take pleasure in winning an argument with a redneck? Ok... I thought that the goal was to make him get his kids vaccinated.

And I am telling you that they did not discredit him using immunology.
Assuming all rednecks are uneducated is very mean.
 
Rednecks vaccinate at very high rates, actually.
Rhetoric rhetoric man... That's good to know. On the other hand, I suspect "high" rate in every group maybe saved the Amish, which I doubt is influenced by any media. Again, no data and don't care enough to affirm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Just saw the movie Vaxxed because of this thread. Seemed pretty weak. Anybody else who actually watched it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
So if you were to tell an anti-vaxer that you get the yearly flu shot and you have autism would they believe you are leveling up your autism?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
To bring it back to the OP's original point of trying to convince their mother- despite how much many of us, myself included, love data and logic, the way to win an argument with the less-sciencey folks is often to go for the emotions while being careful not to put people on the defensive. I'd say go find a few compelling firsthand accounts- blogposts or something- from parents whose child died of measles or had lifelong complications or something, or have children with childhood cancer, who can't get vaccinated because, ya know, cancer. I have a friend whose little brother was treated for brain cancer for 16 years (and now he's cancer free! yay!)- but hearing his mother talk about the sheer terror of going basically anywhere, especially school, because they are in one of the cities with a lot of anti-vaxers... their situation (and her being really vocal about it) did actually change a few folks minds in their town. Start the conversation like you're not talking about vaccines but just about this really sad story you heard about and get the emotional buy-in first (that tactic seems to work with my family members at least....) Or maybe she would consider how her choices might limit them in the future. What if they ever want/need to travel? I'd be afraid to spend time in international airports with a bunch of unvaccinated kids. Or if they want to study abroad or attend college or work somewhere that vaccines are required? In some states, it's really hard to get an exemption for elementary school, so maybe that will help you out if they're going to attend a public school. Also, assuming you are vaccinated and are a reasonably well-adjusted, happy human being, you can use the argument that you turned out just fine :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I had a long discussion with my mother and she seems convinced that there is a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

What can I tell her to convince her otherwise? Saying that Wakefield's medical license got revoked didn't seem to work... :/
Giving your mom the facts is likely to make things worse, not better.
This is well worth your time and great during long drives or workouts. Listen to the two prior episodes if you have time: https://youarenotsosmart.com/2017/02/11/yanss-095-how-to-fight-back-against-the-backfire-effect/
This is discussed in the podcast and one of the authors is interviewed: https://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Giving your mom the facts is likely to make things worse, not better.
This is well worth your time and great during long drives or workouts. Listen to the two prior episodes if you have time: https://youarenotsosmart.com/2017/02/11/yanss-095-how-to-fight-back-against-the-backfire-effect/
This is discussed in the podcast and one of the authors is interviewed: https://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf
I'll definitely sit down and listen, thanks!!
 
I had a long discussion with my mother and she seems convinced that there is a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

What can I tell her to convince her otherwise? Saying that Wakefield's medical license got revoked didn't seem to work... :/

1,256,407 studied..it's pretty much the most studied environmental agent ever. Literally the only thing you can definitely say doesn't cause autism is MMR. You can blame it on cellphones, rise of Justin Beber, Tom Brady touchdowns, global warming, but not MMR.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24814559

If you don't believe this, you might as well not believe in germ therapy or modern medicine
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top