 |
| They do love their drama. |
Alright, so the anti-vaccine movement started with one poorly done study, right? Dr. Wakefield started out with an opinion, cut some corners, and his findings supported that opinion. His peers quickly discovered the flaws in his methods and debunked his findings, but by then a few celebrities and politicians, (and probably a few quacks) had read his work. They latched on to Dr. Wakefield and his opinions, and launched a PR campaign, using their celebrity status and practised charisma to bring attention to their side of the argument. They take advantage of our natural tendency to fear what we don't understand, and lets face it, most lay-people don't understand much science. Now their movement is so powerful that they've brought back at least one disease that had been eliminated in the developed world over a decade ago.
They point to dangerous ingredients, (they’re wrong), they point to the rise in autism diagnoses since the vaccine was introduced…
 |
| Yes, Autism is being diagnosed more often. |
(Not exactly wrong, but other factors show the same or better correlation...)
 |
| Hey look, Organic Food causes Autism too! |
They compare that original scientist to Galileo, because “he was prosecuted too”. But what Galileo did, through observation, was to gather and present data that cast further doubt on the geocentric model of the universe, and put his support behind Copernicus' heliocentric model, one of several available at the time which provided a much better explanation for planetary movements, and which would in time, with much revision, be “proven” true, (in that it can be used to make plans and predict outcomes, which themselves prove reliable), and to this day no other model of our solar system has been more reliable. What Dr. Wakefield did was cut corners and fudge numbers, and his work was thoroughly debunked, and in fact proven to be a fraud in a very short amount of time.
It doesn't matter how much you explain the flaws in the original study, how safe the individual ingredients are, or the difference between correlation and causation, people keep digging their trenches deeper. They’re fed by a misunderstanding of how vaccines work and the concept of herd immunity, not to mention selfish notions of personal choice vs public safety. And no matter how much money the "Big Pharma" powerhouses throw at it, this movement just won’t seem to go away.
Prominent members of the climate denial and anti-GMO movements are often compared to Galileo in the same way, but I think all of these movements have more in common with each other. There is consensus in the scientific community that vaccines are good, the concentration of any potentially dangerous ingredients are far too small to damage an otherwise healthy individual, and having a high enough percentage of the population vaccinated goes a long way to protecting those who cannot be. Likewise, scientists agree that there is nothing inherently dangerous about GMOs, that they can be used to create a more robust and reliable food source, making it easier to nourish the world’s quickly expanding population. As I've mentioned before, when reviews are conducted of the incredible volume of research on GMOs, the only real problem they find is in the ability of scientists to explain their findings to the general public. The evidence is overwhelming, but because free speech is respected and misguided journalists allow false balance, these anti-science movements can gain a lot of traction. And, like Christian fundamentalists trying to claim they’re the ones being discriminated against, they portray themselves as the victimized genius.
This is why rational, critical thinking is so important. It’s so easy to stand up on a soapbox and make a claim, and with a little charismatic persuasion, swing public opinion in dangerous directions. Armed with a skeptical mind, we can instead look at claims like the anti-science movements of today and see them for the snake-oil salesmen that they really are.
It's called cognitive dissonance. The more energy someone has invested in an idea, the harder it is to let go even when confronted with evidence to the contrary. I still recall the example given by a professor in an undergraduate psychology class of a religious sect that prepared for the end of the world - which they predicted would fall on a particular date. That date came and went yet their beliefs remained as strong as ever.
ReplyDeleteI've read a little about that kind of case as well. This entry was constructed the way it was as an attempt to use a technique that's been suggested lately in professional skeptic circles called "inoculation theory", (appropriately appropriated from vaccination). The anti-vaxxer movement has lost a little ground lately, and even most anti-GMO people I know of are pro-vaccination, so I start with something I know will gain a little traction with that segment of the audience. Then, once their critical processes are engaged, show them the similarities to something they are not seeing as clearly.
ReplyDelete