How to Fight Karens?

Hey guys,

Thought I'd never see this day come, but it is now here and I need help because I'm at a loss for what to do. So here's a little background to bolster your understanding.

I was casually talking to my mother earlier and we spoke about her workplace and how there was an anti-vaxxer there. She talked about how this anti-vaxxer was loud,obnoxious and trying to convince everyone in her workplace to not take vaccines.

My mother is your typical boomer (40-60 years old), very little knowledge about science and whatnot, and her workplace is of a similar ilk. She talk about how there was this anti-vaxxer that had started to convince other boomers in her workplace to not take vaccines, by showing them internet websites and youtube videos. She forwarded a picture of a list to my mother, listing all the ingredients in the vaccine, and because of their scientific nature. e.g 1-2 hydroxychloride, di-hydrogen monoxide etc etc (forgive my high school chem skills) she said it did initially scare her, and many others at her workplace.

I managed to convince my mother that vaccines were indeed good, and that herd-immunity was important. But this debunking took quite a bit of time. I had to try and link real life examples that she sees in everyday life, and try to link those experiences to positively reinforce the fact that vaccines were indeed good, and that some side effects that could be seen in some people were not related to the vaccine being bad.

It seems pretty scary how anti-vaxxers can sway opinions so quickly, but scientific proofs take time to explain and relate.

But it was pretty alarming at how the workplace at where she works at (they deal with children on a daily basis) has not fired her for her beliefs as they are putting other kids in danger. In addition to that, I was disheartened to hear that some of them were fearful enough that they skipped on their flu shots this year. Purely because of this anti-vaxxer and the coronavirus scare.

I would like to hear about your experiences if any, and how you managed to convince others that vaccines were in fact, good. Perhaps I could learn to teach others more effectively too.

Comments

  • +55

    My view is don't bother. Everyone has a contrarian opinion on everything these days exacerbated by the rise of fake news and blind social media resharing.

    You might want to try a bit, but if they were ever susceptible to logic, they wouldn't be like that in the first place. I would say let it play it's course over time and things will inevitably self-fix.

    Not too long ago we had legal slavery, it was perfectly normal to come home and smack your wife if your dinner was too salty and thought cigarettes were healthy medicine.

    Humanity fixes itself over time. It takes effort and sacrifice but not on pointless individual local level.

    • +26

      it's just a little concerning because had I not intervened with my mother, she would have not taken the flu jab as well.

      The society correction that you speak of will involve a lot of dead and otherwise innocent children.

      I don't know, I somewhat think that as a human, we owe it to them to at least try.

      edit: also I feel as though, the people who will do the most harm are the ones who sit on the fence and are easily swayed. They probably do more damage as a whole than the loud anti-vaxxers

      • +4

        Hey, unfortunately, there is only one person in the world who can change a fool's mind, and that is the fool himself.

        I keep getting Facebook group invites recently to this group where all the Propaganda, which was originally targeted at Americans, is now creeping into Australia. This group has 48,000 people in it! (Remember it's just an Australian group, with Australian articles etc.) You wouldn't think that many people can be crazy, but there are. The group is growing everyday, and spreads mis-information about vaccination, Bill Gates being the evil guy, how Covid-19 isn't real, chem-trails etc. etc… You spend a few minutes on that site and it really feels like you are living a circus world, where everyone is a clown. Facebook doesn't even take down these groups. Oh, and the irony is, they call themselves as being awake lol

        • what group is this? so i can have a laugh

          • +1

            @txb: Ok, but I am warning you.. you might lose a few brain cells reading this:

            https://www.facebook.com/groups/273255510505924/

            • +1

              @anonymous01: Oh no! I’ve been getting similar invitations from an otherwise relatively intelligent friend, to the point where I sent her a message explaining that I’ve just been diagnosed with cancer and these types of people put my life at risk. I clicked on the link to see if it was the same group and another friend is a member of this one! 🤦‍♀️ It would explain why she keeps posting photos on social media of her trips here, there and everywhere on the weekends. I won’t be going anywhere near her for a long time!

            • +1

              @anonymous01: oh my that was interesting. Thanks for sharing.

              I was struck by how 'well meaning' most of these people seem to be. I mean, they seem motivated to protect themselves and others from harm, which obviously isn't a bad thing. But there's also a palpable sense of panic/anxiety, and a lack of critical thinking skills. Once they trust the context they don't seem interested in ever critically evaluating the content of the message.

              Another thing, whey are they on facebook? If they are concerned about 'one world government' et al, why give up personal data, and allow their activities to be tracked by an near omnipotent, largely unregulated, privately controlled, global corporation that really is interested in altering their behaviour for it's benefit. I note many of them seem to have nonsensical job descriptions. Perhaps that's to throw Zuckerberg off their scent.

            • @anonymous01: Thank you!

        • +11

          The problem is a lack of scientific literacy and critical thinking skill.

          The solution is education. We need to pay our teachers more to attract better candidates. Teaching grows young minds. That's a profession which should be more prestigious than lawyering and even medicine.

          Prevention is better than cure.

          • +5

            @Scrooge McDuck: Absolutely true. If we can follow more of the Finland model of education - where teaching is a highly prestigious profession. People compete just to get in. I believe you need a 5-year Masters's degree just to teach primary school. The benefits are even more profound than that. A good education is a great leveller for children, from every background - whether rich or poor. In Finland, generally-speaking, every school is great - so parents do not need to compete to get into good schools, but simply pick the closest school nearby - which is another benefit.

            • +7

              @bluesky: Meanwhile in Australia, we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to teachers:

              A student with a raw ATAR of 49.65 was offered a place in the ACU's secondary teaching degree in the humanities, and a raw rank of 48.30 was accepted for the University of Canberra's primary education degree.

              [The] median ATAR of students accepted in those courses are in the 60s or 70s.

              Despite this , Australian teachers get paid around 30% more than their Finnish counterpart.

              • @[Deactivated]: I did not know about this last bit (30% more). With this environment, little wonder some children are falling through the cracks.

                • +3
                  • +4

                    @[Deactivated]: Good teachers who are committed, and choose this profession because they are passionate about teaching are truly commendable. But knowing the system also allows very mediocre ones in, despite being remunerated fairly, is surely an ominous sign. Why is addressing this not a priority, I wonder.

                    • +3

                      @bluesky: The system, with its impossible administrative burdens, tend to wear the good ones down until they eventually leave :/

                      • @[Deactivated]: Exactly. My wife's best friend is a stressed out HS teacher and co-ordinator. She is very passionate about it and the stories she tells me about politics, bureaucracy, in fighting, and whining is unbelievable.

              • +2

                @[Deactivated]: I used to work at one of the universities in your quote, and have never forgotten processing a student’s handwritten application to enrol in the subject ‘Litracy for Teachers’. I thought it was a fine idea!

              • +2

                @[Deactivated]: Someone got 17 and got into the teaching course down here… no one know how you even get 17. It was a couple years ago so I can't find it, but found this: QUEENSLAND students can get into education degrees with OPs as low as 17, reigniting calls to overhaul the standards to become a teacher.

              • @[Deactivated]: I have heard this flawed argument once before, if you do some research you will find that the class size in Finland averages 20 students per class. Australia has higher average class sizes. I'm sure that's one reason they deserve to be paid more

                • @Vasilly6: The starting full-time salary for a classroom teacher in most Australian states is between $65,000 and $70,000 and it rises incrementally every year.

                  Yet,

                  A global study of more than half a million 15-year-olds has found Australian students lag 3.5 years behind their Chinese counterparts in maths — and their performance in all three major subjects is in long-term decline.

                  Name me another profession where you get paid that much for not fulfilling the basic requirement of your job?

                  Teachers' salaries should be performance-based.That's how you attract the best and brightest in other professions. Why should it be any different for teaching?

          • @Scrooge McDuck: Agree. Unfortunately there's a massive lead time to turn that ship around.

        • -2

          Facebook doesn't even take down these groups

          Dude, seriously you want tech giant to be a arbitrator of what is right n wrong. Arent they censored enough already ?

          Oh wait username check out …

      • -2

        Just querying the term 'typical boomer'. If it's the age, there is no 'typical'; you are or you aren't. If it's not, then what are you basing 'typical' on, except another set of prejudices/stereotypes?

        • +8

          The post WW2 baby boom lasted from 1946 to around 1964. Baby boomers are 55-74 years old, not 40-60 years old as OP claimed.

          • @trongy: That means I juuust scrape in as a boomer. I hate that, as I see myself as a gen X. My parents were little children in the war (born 1939) , so I thought by definition I couldn’t be a boomer, flower power and all that. I did think I was pretty cool when mum bought me some o blood platforms and a super wide paisley tie to go with my bell bottom jeans though.

            Truth is generations don’t slot in neatly like that.Thing is I entered the workforce in the late eighties during Keating’s”recession we had to have”, rhetoric he was allowed to get away with. Boomers had little trouble getting jobs when they entered the workforce. Not so gen X.

            • +1

              @entropysbane: It doesn't make sense to assign fixed dates to these generations.

              The baby boom was a real demographic phenomenon. If you look at a chart of fertility rate, you will see that it was low in the great depression era but had already started to climb before the start of WW2. It continued to climb during and after WW2 and peaked in the mid 1950's and continued to decline . Douglas Copeland, an author who popularised the term Generation X from an American perspective described it as belonging to people born during the Vietnam War era (1965-1975), but it's since been extended.

              From a sociological perspective, baby boomers were more likely to have grown up in a house with multiple siblings and a stay at home mother. Gen-Xers were more likely to have a working mother an have one sibling or be an only child (due to the declining birth rate).

              Once people start describing personality traits of people from different generations it starts sounding like astrology. They are no longer talking about demographic or sociological differences.

      • +3

        Having debated a relative who is a staunch believer in flat-earth, and that moon landing/ISS are all fake news and conspiracies created by NASA, my position is midway between Hybroid’s and yours. I think we should still try somewhat with friends and family, but at the same time recognising that our sphere of influence is limited. (Ironically, if this relative wasn’t trying to convert me, the discussion wouldn’t even have come up!)

        But more disturbingly, what I find typically, with people who place little emphasis on scientific rigour is: if they have the upper-hand, it is fine. Soon as you present facts and observations to contradict their arguments, (a) they try to fob your arguments, without a need to reply, (b) continue to parade their arguments, as if the more times they say it, they become true (c) get aggressive and personal, even if you are just trying to stick to the facts in a dispassionate fashion.

        Once I observe (c), it is my cue not to bother, although the consequences are hard to watch. For e.g., his daughter chose the topic of flat-earth to submit as a school essay. I could only cringe and bite my tongue.

        • +3

          Didn't realise that someone could be Australian and a flat-earther? Isn't one of the tenet of flat-earth theory that Australia doesn't exist?

          One fascinating extraordinary belief that I have just recently come to know is the idea
          that the country of Australia doesn’t exist. The theory holds that Australia is just an elaborate cover up by the British government for a mass murder. People believe that when Australia was founded as a penal colony that the prisoners were killed instead of sent to the nonexistent island, but England couldn’t admit that outright. Now these people would argue that it has simply been too long, so the British government maintains the conspiracy so as not to be viewed as lying and monstrous. The main people that believe this are people who believe in the flat Earth theory,thinking that to execute these prisoners they sailed them over the edge of the world.

          • +1

            @[Deactivated]: This is an overseas relative; if showing the observed movement of the stars being anti-clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere could not convince him, among other observables, nothing much could. I told him I have been tracking the ISS for a while and watched it multiple times with my own eyes in the evening sky, his answer was he did not doubt I saw something, but it was probably a hot-air balloon (which had to be moving mighty fast?! :-))

            BTW the theory you mentioned was never brought up - maybe because I kept popping up from Australia every now and then! :-)

          • +1

            @[Deactivated]: I don’t think a lot of these people read and/or comprehend what they’re sharing properly. Their educational level doesn’t seem to be very high, in the main, if the way they express themselves is any indication.

          • +1

            @[Deactivated]: We're actually on the bottom of the disk ;)

            • @Banville: Isn't that where hell is?

              Edit : Actually, sounds like that's backstage

              “Australia does not exist. All things you call 'proof' are actually well fabricated lies and documents made by the leading governments of the world.

              “Your Australian friends? They're all actors and computer generated personas, part of the plot to trick the world."

          • +1

            @[Deactivated]: I think flat earthers get off on being contrarian, no doubt it starts off as a joke and snowballs from there.

            • +1

              @entropysbane:

              The church says the earth is flat; but I have seen its shadow on the moon, and I have more confidence even in a shadow than in the church.

              -Ferdinand Magellan, 500 years ago.

              But my favourite quote is from historian J. Russell:

              It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat.

              A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere.

              Nor did this situation change with the advent of Christianity. A few—at least two and at most five—early Christian fathers denied the sphericity of earth by mistakenly taking passages such as Ps. 104:2-3 as geographical rather than metaphorical statements. On the other hand, tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church. The point is that no educated person believed otherwise.

              Pythagoras suspected the Earth was a sphere 2500 years ago. We are regressing as a civilisation.

              • @[Deactivated]: I thought it was from Isaiah 11:12 or Ezekiel 7:2 lol.

                Then again Isaiah 40:22 refers to the "circle of the earth"

                https://www.gotquestions.org/flat-earth-Bible.html

                • +1

                  @ozhunter: Psalm 104 describes the Earth as a tent, flat at the bottom with the heavens stretched above it like a dome. According to flat earthers there are 240+ verses where the scriptures confirm their absurd notion.

                  P.s:I saw a young couple having a fight in the car park while I was loading the grocery into my car just now. I got the distinct impression that he got caught cheating and she was breaking up with him. I overhead him begging her, "Please give me a second chance! She means nothing to me. You're the one I love. I would go to the end of the Earth for you!"

                  I hope she didn't fall for that line! A sphere has no ends🤔

    • +6

      Humanity fixes itself over time

      Don't think that's really true, we've just got different issues now

      • +4

        Natural selection is true but takes time.

      • Yes, but -

        The old issues are mostly fixed. As you said, we have new issues.

        We'll always be fixing issues. And after we've fixed them, there will be new issues.

        Just like people are always dying. But there are always new people.

        And air is always getting polluted. But there's always new air!

        That's life.

        Maybe there won't always be life. But as long as there is human life, that's how it will work.

    • +39

      My view is don't bother.

      I disagree. The reason why these views are so pervasive is because of this attitude. In general, the reason why the anti-vaxxer cult has been growing is because their members simply preach to others much more than pro-vaxxers do. The problem is that vaccination has become so mainstream that we treat it as a "duh" and rarely actually spend the time to make the case for vaccination anymore. How often do you think someone who is "pro-vaccination" shares a post about the benefits of vaccination, or tells people around them to get vaccinated? Probably never.

      As an economist who has previously worked in public policy, you really need to fight like an outsider to be heard.

      • +5

        Agreed. I believe the evidence shows that it's easier to 'vaccinate' people against pseudoscientific bull than it is to turn them back after they've succumbed to the mind virus.

        Inoculating against science denial

        How to Inoculate Against Anti-Vaxxers

        Merchants of misinformation are all over the internet. But the real problem lies with us

      • +2

        It's true that anti-vaxers are more vocal, and I believe you'll never convince an anti-vaxer of the benefits, because they simply don't have the intelligence to understand them. Like they say, never argue with a stupid person - they'll only drag you down to their level. Trying to convince someone who is on the fence however, has obvious benefits and may well prove fruitful.

        • +10

          I believe you'll never convince an anti-vaxer of the benefits, because they simply don't have the intelligence to understand them. Like they say, never argue with a stupid person - they'll only drag you down to their level.

          This is exactly the reason why we have anti-vaxxer cults, because you take people who society already view as "stupid" or "uninformed" and they find people who actually seem to listen to them and care about their concerns. You're already losing the PR battle the moment you start calling others stupid.

        • +7

          It's important to use words correctly. If we use words correctly, we can think clearly and communicate effectively. And if we can do those things, we can change the world.

          Anti-vaxers aren't stupid. A stupid person wouldn't be able to talk, let alone convince anyone of anything.

          It's not always easy to convince people unless they want to be convinced. If someone doesn't want to be convinced, a stupid person will not be able to convince them.

          Usually. Because everyone makes mistakes, and sometimes really smart people make dumb mistakes.

          But usually, you won't be able to convince someone to act against their own interests by refusing to get vaccinated unless you're pretty smart and you believe what you're saying.

          Anti-vaxxers aren't stupid. Anti-vaxxers aren't liars. Anti-vaxxers aren't bad.

          Anti-vaxxers are wrong.

          And anti-vaxxers don't have to be wrong, because they're not stupid!

          Anti-vaxxers, like any other reasonably intelligent person, can be convinced that they were wrong. And like most people, they don't want to be wrong. They want to be right.

          They think they're right already. They aren't. But they can be right.

          They can be convinced, but it won't be easy and it will take a long time.

          Instead, we should first tell everyone who is undecided why vaccination is right.

      • +2

        I agree, these people are often successful in spreading their information because of their passion vs people who accept the consensus of more educated scientific bodies. Like you say the information becomes so mainstream we don't educate ourselves in great detail, so harder to argue with anything but broad concepts. As compared to their sometimes detailed misinformation.

        In my personal experience it can be hard to argue with them as you end up having to become an expert in their misinformation. Some are quoting from some poor source, where as others are quoting from sources that layer and weave misinformation and incorrect sources in a way that is believable to a layman.

        edit: While arguing with them is a waste of time, them spreading propaganda at work that could end up harmful to other employees seems inappropriate and something that should be halted by HR. I don't necessarilly think there should be severe job consequences to the anti-vaxxer, but work environments shouldn't be a platform for harmful misinformation.

        This anti-expert sentiment is a bit crazy, it's good that people don't blindly accept "experts" why do so many of this demographic then accept the validity of these non-experts?

        • +7

          Even if you understand their misinformation and try to show them what was really meant, they usually just reply with "You're an idiot". Take the recent Bill Gates situation, where anti-vaxxers are stating that Bill Gates said he wants to "depopulate the earth" (their words) by 10-15% through the use of vaccinations. Of course the actual point Bill was making is that in 3rd world countries, many people have "backup babies", because they've come to expect that some of their kids will die in childhood due to illness. If these same people knew their children would die not of preventable diseases (through vaccination and better education), they would likely have less children overall, and therefore the INCREASE in population over the next few decades might be decreased by 10-15%. But trust me, you can't explain this to an anti-vaxxer.

          And seriously, what kind of a complete imbecile would you have to be to believe that someone like Bill Gates (an old guy with tons of money) has nothing better to do than plan and fund organisations that have a secret agenda which involves killing people through mass vaccination? Like I said, they are stupid people. It might not be nice to say it, but I can't come to any other conclusion.

          • @dcash: Yeh you're probably right, I am just trying to work out a personal balance with people I know between action and pragmatic apathy.

            I have seen a few interviews from the last few years where Bill Gates was warning everyone that "the next pandemic" is what he feared most and said it would come very soon, unfortunately accurate.
            My anecdotal experience is they often believe these "sets" of information, I'd love to see what comes in their "conspiracy theory starter packs" ;)

            • +1

              @Banville: Maybe you could ask the person who down-voted me, as they obviously believe Bill Gates really /is/ out to get everyone! No doubt they also believe vaccinations cause autism, that the 5G mobile network is spreading Covid-19, and that contrails in the sky are actually mind-controlling "chemtrails". People in the loony bin are often far more sane than conspiracy theory nutters :D

  • +44

    I would like to hear about your experiences

    Rule #1 Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

    • +7

      If you keep asking probing questions that ultimately ended in a non satisfying answer then that should reveal that they lack knowledge of an area, or don't accept opposing views.

      If someone wraps their identity to a cause, they will never yield.

      And that's why you should never support a political party; only support policies.

      • From my experience, when you ask them these probing questions all the way down to the root, they take offense at the line of questioning and switch the topic back to the top, usually along the lines of "you just don't see the truth! it's all a lie!". It's usually some non-factual comment or something illogical with the flow of the conversation.

    • +1

      But it was his Mum?

  • +7

    Two ways I have done it in the past…

    1. ask for proof. Set the ground rules first. Proof must meet the standard for scientific, peer reviewed work.

    or

    1. Don't bother. Ignorance has more experience and will just drag you down to their level.

    I have, in the past, asked them if they believe in tetanus shots, intravenous medication or asthma preventers - but that's usually when they start spouting crap about the entire medical profession being in on some global conspiracy.

    • -1

      You need to empathize with them, and actually do some research. Yes vaccines have caused serious hard to people, but the benefits out weight the negatives.

      Science gets stuff wrong, people make mistakes.

      • +2

        not in this case. The arguments are invalid and need to be stopped. It's not them saying 'some people get sick', they claim vaccines cause autism, vaccines have toxic chemicals, or my favourite 'vaccines area. secret government plan to control us'

        Come to me with a thought through, and wrong, argument and we will have a discussion. Come to me parroting conspiracy theories and full baked nonsense and I'm going to call you out on it or just ignore you.

    • If you set the ground rules, they'll simply argue that the real results are being manipulated by some higher up power to keep you from the truth, unless of course the evidence supports their cause then in which case they'll refer to it over and over again no matter how much or little relevance it actually has.
      You'll eventually reach an impasse. You can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn.

  • +13

    I came across an anti-vaxxer doctor telling all their patients how COVID-19 was made up by the world's governments to get everyone poisoned with the flu shot. Very terrifying to say the least.

    • +4

      Yikes!

    • +12

      step 1. kill everyone
      step 2. ???
      step 3. profit.

      • +1

        This is the line I've started taking with conspriacy theorists lately. Assuming what they are saying is correct and the government wants to control us, why? In a capitalist society, what benefit is there to having everyone stay at home due to COVID-19? What benefit is there in poisoning everyone around the world with vaccines? What is 'their' goal? So far I haven't been able to get a satisfactory answer (got a couple in the family). I'm just waiting for a response to give myself a good laugh :)

        • They're making us stay at home to control us so we have babies, then vaccinating us with toxic chemicals man!, but also they are killing us with COVID and making us debt slaves, while also draining the world of its money by collapsing the economy and also probably the new world order is floating around somewhere too! And if you don't believe it you're one of them man! #illuminati #rothschild #billgapes #trustnoone #bilderberg #911wasaninsidejob #5gcauzezcanzer

          • +1

            @ProlapsedHeinous: the debt slavery thing is not too far off.
            buying a house in Melbourne or Sydney at 10-15x your annual income (and the Gov propping up the housing bubble) is unprecedented in human history…

    • +10

      Was it Dr Andrew Wakefield? In the late 1990s, he and 12 of his colleagues (!) published a case series in the Lancet, which suggested that the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine may predispose to behavioral regression and pervasive developmental disorder in children. It was only in 2010, that Dr Wakefield et al. were found guilty of deliberate fraud (they picked and chose data that suited their case and falsified facts) in exchange for financial gain.

      Scientists and organisations across the world spent a great deal of time and money refuting the results of his 'study' and exposing the scientific fraud that formed the basis of the paper. Appallingly, parents across the world did not vaccinate their children out of fear of the risk of autism, thereby exposing their children to the risks of disease and the well-documented complications related thereto. Measles outbreaks in the UK in 2008 and 2009 as well as pockets of measles in the USA and Canada were attributed to the non-vaccination of children. It is one of the most serious frauds in medical history and Wakefield has been stuck off the medical register in the UK. If I remember correctly, he was a gastroenterologist and the son of a neurologist and a GP. Clearly new better.

      For those who think crime never pays, he went on to date Elle Macpherson and is a close friend and unofficial advisor to Trump…

      • +2

        this makes me sad, and yeah I did hear about this a while back, but not the unofficial advisor to Trump part. :(

        • +3

          He has also convinced Jenny Mccarthy that her son had autism caused by his MMR vaccination:

          McCarthy claims Evan was diagnosed with autism after having the MMR [measles, mumps, and rubella] vaccination. She told CNN that her son has since "recovered" from autism through a regiment including diet change, vitamins and supplements, and detoxing the body from metals and candida.

          What a quack!

          • +3

            @[Deactivated]: Researchers at MTS University in Virginia believe they may have found the cause of autism: Jenny McCarthy. A new study shows a strong correlation between the rise in the "actresses" fame and the rise in the number of children with autism reported in the United States and Canada.
            https://www.democraticunderground.com/12311168

      • -4

        It is interesting to note. Dr Wakefield was not AntiVax.

        'Urgent further research is needed to determine whether MMR may give rise to this complication in a small number of people,' Wakefield said at the time." He said, "If you give three viruses together, three live viruses, then you potentially increase the risk of an adverse event occurring, particularly when one of those viruses influences the immune system in the way that measles does." He suggested parents should opt for single vaccinations against measles, mumps and rubella, separated by gaps of one year. 60 Minutes interviewed him in November 2000, and he repeated these claims to the U.S. audience, providing a new focus for the nascent anti-vaccination movement in the U.S., which had been primarily concerned about thiomersal in vaccines. In December 2001, Wakefield resigned from the Royal Free Hospital, saying, "I have been asked to go because my research results are unpopular." The medical school said that he had left "by mutual agreement". In February 2002, Wakefield stated, "What precipitated this crisis was the removal of the single vaccine, the removal of choice, and that is what has caused the furore—because the doctors, the gurus, are treating the public as though they are some kind of moronic mass who cannot make an informed decision for themselves."

        • +3

          It is interesting to note. Dr Wakefield was not AntiVax.

          Source?

          Here's what an award-wining investigative journalist found when he started digging into Wakefield's past:

          Since February 1996, seven months before child 2's admission, Wakefield had been engaged by a lawyer named Richard Barr, who hoped to bring a lawsuit against vaccine manufacturers. Barr was a high street solicitor, and an expert in home conveyancing, but also acted for an anti-vaccine group, JABS. And, through this connection, the man nowadays popularly dubbed the "MMR doctor" had found a supply of research patients for Walker-Smith.

          "The following are signs to look for," Barr wrote in a newsletter to his vaccine claim clients, mostly media enlisted parents of children with brain disorders, giving a list of common Crohn's disease symptoms. "If your child has suffered from all or any of these symptoms could you please contact us, and it may be appropriate to put you in touch with Dr Wakefield."

          and that's just the beginning

          • -1

            @[Deactivated]: He wasn't an antivaxer. He was against a single vaccine because, surprise surprise, he had come with a competing vaccine and wanted to get people to use it instead.

            • @Zephyrus: Source?

              • @[Deactivated]: https://www.bmj.com/bmj/section-pdf/186183?path=/bmj/342/778…

                It's mentioned in here. He patented an alternative measles vaccine before publishing the infamous "study".

                I don't think it's a big leap to say there was a profit motive there.

                • +2

                  @Zephyrus: He directed and released a pseudoscience documentary film called Vaxxed in 2016 criticising the CDC and the big pharmas. He also self-styles himself as an anti-vaccine activist nowadays.

      • +1

        Gees I wish it was as they'd be exposed. I don't know the exact details but they're no longer employed and under investigation at least.

    • Wow - that’s scary! Were you in a position to report them to the appropriate medical authority?

    • its ok…i think some powerful people have since exterminated him and erased all trace of his existence .

  • +7

    If that surprises you, have a look at some Flat-Earthers on you tube. There's no way to fight them.

    For every logical argument you bring up, the will give 10 reasons why they won't believe you.

    "well the human body is a magical thing, vaccines are new and untested, just think of what we did before vaccines…"
    "people died Karen, people died"

  • +33

    My mother is your typical boomer (40-60 years old)

    Incorrect.

    • +1

      General consensus is Baby boomers are 1946-1964 meaning they would be a minumum of 56 right now. So not too far wrong.

      Saying that they could be younger and relate more to a baby boomer. I think it's more of a mindset than an actual age.

      • +1

        I'd say it's more of a mindset too, personally my grandma was the one with many kids. One of them being my mother, to me she qualifies as a boomer hahaha.

        The only reason why I say boomer is because this phenomenon seems more common with people in that age range and that particular kind of mindset. Didn't mean it in any derogatory way.

        • -1

          Bring on Sharon

        • +2

          You are using the term wrongly and that's actually relevant to the topic at hand.

          The Salk polio vaccine injection was introduced to Australia in 1956. Boomers (born 1946-1964) would have been at risk of contracting polio during childhood - it was a great fear for parents of that era. Boomers were the first generation to get that polio vaccine as children. In 1966 the Sabin oral polio vaccine was introduced.

          Today's 40 year olds are not boomers, they were born in the 1970s. By that time the polio vaccine was routine, herd immunity was well established and fear of polio had died down. The childhood experience polio vaccination of boomers compared to 40-something Gen-Xers would have completely different.

          Remembering Australia’s polio scourge

      • +8

        If millenials are boomers is not too far wrong, then zoomers are millenials is not too far wrong, so, zoomers are boomers is not too far wrong.

        • -4

          I think you're disagreeing with me…

          However OP said his mother was in the 40-60 age range and boomers are 56+, so it's not necessarily incorrect as mapax stated. Hence not too far wrong.

  • +54

    a 40yo is NOT a boomer… FFS.

    • -5

      Ok boomer

      • +1

        I was too slow :(

      • +5

        Haha this one really sorted out those who can take a joke, from those who can't.

    • +18

      Ok boomer 😂

      Op,

      Baby boomers were born between 1944 and 1964. They're currently between 56-76 years old .
      Gen X was born between 1965 - 1979 and are currently between 41-55 years old
      Gen Y, or Millennials, were born between 1980 and 1994. They are currently between 26-40 years old.
      Gen Y.1 = 25-29 years old
      Gen Y.2 = 29-39
      Gen Z is the newest generation to be named and were born between 1995 and 2015. They are currently between 5-25 years old

      • +10

        All you god damn whipper snappers… GET OFF MY LAWN!!

      • +3

        Why do we even make these silly distinctions? Can't we just call a 40yo a 40yo?

        These distinctions always seem stupid to me - so if someone is born at 11.59pm 31/12/1964, they're a boomer, but if they're born at 12.00am 01/01/1965, they're a Gen X?

        • +2

          They’re not hard and fast rules, they’re ways of categorising people. For example, they’re generally based around world events. A millennial is generally someone who can remember 9/11 but was still a child whereas gen z grew up in a different world, etc. If we were to say 40 years olds… the same problem would apply with some 39 and 11 months people..

          • @Emerald Owl: Yep, exactly. To take this further, millennials are further categorised as those that were children in new millenium, hence the name, and are the last generation that can remember a world without the internet. There's obviously blurred lines where the older of this generation will remember the internet-less world better than the younger, but it is still a defining point of the generational divide. Same with 9/11, it was a defining moment for that generation, the world has since changed significantly from that day, much like how COVID will be for Gen Z. Again, the older Gen Z that are finishing school and starting careers will have a different experience to those that are younger and in early primary school, but it is still a defining point for their generation.

      • +3

        Gen Z = Mobile Zombies

        • When I worked at the Casino and had to deal with all these new 18yo kids fresh out of school who fell into the Gen Y demographic, they were always referred to as "Gen Whine" for the overwhelming propensity to whine about "It's not fair… Why me… Why not me…"

          • +1

            @pegaxs: And what are you doing with your comment boomer?

          • @pegaxs: Hey! I'm a Gen Y :)

Login or Join to leave a comment