When I encounter a REAL anti-vaxer, I generally try to ask them the following ten questions.
Now, when I say anti-vaxer, I don't mean the vaccine hesitant or those that are convinced by an anti-vax website or YouTube video. I'm referring to those who run the websites, write the books, make the videos etc.
The one's who should know better.
The one's who actually do know better.
The one's who are anti-vax, not because they don't think vaccines are safe and effective, but because they KNOW they are safe and effective. Well... most of them.
"How can that be?" You say. Well, scratch an anti-vaxer, you'll find a racist eugenicist that Dr Mengele would be proud of. It's that simple.
 |
| Image credit: Eugenics Society Poster, 1930s (Wikimedia Commons | CC BY 4.0) |
The problem is, they can't admit it. Nobody would listen to them. They would have no followers and no influence. Also no $$$ from the book sales and lecture tours.
The thing is, they're proud of their stance. They'd love to admit it. So, they just need a little encouragement to do so.
Now I did say "most of them". There are some that are - well - nutcases. These will usually have a swag of conspiracy theories: The Earth is flat; Lizardmen control the world; Moon landing hoax; Bill Gates is the anti-Christ; 9/11 truthers; Birthers; 5G. It doesn't matter. Conspiracy theories are like Tim Tams: You can't stop at one. You also can't reason with them, but you can get them to admit to the other conspiracy theories. That's usually enough to discredit them a little. But for some reason Chef Pete is like Teflon when it comes to this. Maybe that says more about his followers than anything else.
The ten questions are all about anti-vaxers outing themselves for what they really are. So, often they will ignore them or avoid answering them directly. Don't let them off the hook. If they say it isn't a simple yes or no, ask why. Keep asking. Don't let them shake you. Get others to ask the same simple questions.
The first two questions are simply a way to separate the wolves from the goats. A conspiracy theorist will usually reject one or both of these, so the others become superfluous. If they reject both, then continuing further is impossible. You simply don't have a common grounding in logic and reality. Any argument will quickly devolve into either solipsism or magical thinking. You may be able to get them to admit to other conspiracy theories, which would be a win of sorts.
1. Do you accept the Scientific Method?
For some reason, we seem to have a plague of scientific-illiteracy on
social media. This is compounded by the illiterate reveling in their
illiteracy as though it's something to be proud of.
There's nothing magical about science. In fact "science' isn't a thing,
it's a discipline. Science is defined by any field of study governed by
the scientific method. Broadly speaking, Science is simply a systematic
way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent
logic to evaluate results.
Ask them: Which part of that do they disagree with? Being
thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using
consistent logic?
The scientific method mandates that all aspects of scientific research must be:
- testable
- reproduceable
- falsifiable
https://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html
The scientific method has been around for over 300 years. Adherence to
the scientific method has provided us with every single technological
advancement we recognise today and has doubled our life expectancy. If
you reject the scientific method, you should forsake the computer you're
using right now, your car, electricity, flying, your ready access to
food and medicine.
There are some people who like to point to changes in scientific
opinions over time as an example of science not working when exactly
this is the opposite. Following the scientific method requires you to
change your opinions when new data shows that opinion to be incorrect.
Sure, science has been proven wrong, but it's always by better science
and not because of some fanciful dogmatic idea that someone had. It was
because the evidence lead in a different direction and scientists - as a
body - moved in that direction.
2. Do you accept the Germ Theory of Disease?
Adherence to the Scientific Method lead to one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time: Louis Pasteur's Germ Theory of disease. It remains one of the greatest scientific lay-down miseres of all time with an overwhelming body of irrefutable proof. Prior to this it was thought that "Miasmas" were responsible for disease. Miasma theory posited that diseases were the product of environmental factors such as contaminated water, foul air, and poor hygienic condition rather than from microorganisms. So, when an antivaxer starts spouting these reasons, then they probably deny Germ Theory as well. This is why they reject vaccines, because if vaccines DID actually work, then they'd have to accept Germ Theory.
If you get a yes to both questions, then you can proceed on. Most likely, you'll have a eugenicist. So the trick is to get a straight answer without sounding dogmatic or manichaean. Don't tell them they have to give a yes or now answer, ask them why they can't. Probe every reason and sub reason. If they get angry or complain, ask them why it's such a big deal. If they still don't, restate the question as "So, you don't know if xxx is true (or false)". They don't like to say they don't know something, so they'll usually say "Yes, I do know" which you follow up with "Well, why didn't you just say so in the first place?"
3. Do you think the Earth is overpopulated?
This one is easy. Most (if not all) will say yes. It means little, but it builds a foundation to follow. One they can't backtrack on or use as an excuse later, because the admitted it. Also, it gets them used to them saying yes and you moving on like it's no big deal - which at this stage it isn't.
4. Do you think the only way to survive as a species is to drastically reduce our population in a short period of time?
This should come easily as well. For most eugenicists, this is THEIR argument. The one THEY own, which they use with their indoctrinated sheep later on.
But they may smell a rat here. So you made need to spend a little time in clarification. Perhaps you may need to reword it to their liking. You may even ask them to reword it. After all, you don't want to create a strawman.
5. Do you agree that the statement "Survival of the fittest?" should apply to humanity as well as the animal kingdom.
This is another eugenicist article of faith. However, at this point they'll probably smell a rat and start looking for the exit. Don't let them. Hang on and reword it to their liking if necessary.
6. Do you think that we are generally weaker and less healthy than we were 200 years ago?
It would be extremely difficult for a anti-vaxer to say no to this question after saying yes to the preceding ones. If they say no, then why are we healthier? because of modern medicine of course!
The answer is actually no. We live twice as long, suffer less and no longer die from simple things. To say we were healthier back then ignores survivor bias.Thing of all the illnesses you've suffered in your life, accidents you had, operations etc. Without modern medicine, would you be alive or dead right now?
7. Do you think that modern medicine has contributed to weakening the gene pool?
Now we are getting to the nitty gritty. At the core of the eugenicist argument is that by culling the weak, those that are left have healthier genes and only they go on to reproduce. This is the crux of their argument. Since eugenicists do have a core of like-minded believers, they can't say no or even prevaricate. Whereas a yes won't mean very much to the sheep, it provides the solid ground for the remaining questions.
8. Do you think that childhood vaccines and other health interventions in children have allowed weaker children that normally would have died to grow up and reproduce?
This question follows from the last as night follows day. But this is the big one that will rock the sheep.
If they say yes, they admit that vaccines actually work. If they didn't, then 'weaker' children wouldn't survive these diseases. This is actually the opposite of what they imply to their followers.
Have fun in this space.
9. Do you think that some racial groups have better, stronger genetics than others?
Hang around in anti-vax echo chambers for long enough and you will see a lot of casual racism, espcially anti-semitism.It's vile and disgusting, but there for the faithful to see and ignore.
If you can handle it, and don't call them out on it, they you'll see more and more of it from these cryptofascists.
10 Do you think that allowing children to get childhood diseases (which some may die from) will improve the overall health of the gene pool?
If you've managed to get this far: congratulations! You've done better than me. These oxygen-thieves are smart enough to ignore this question (usually). If you can get them to admit to this question, you have proof they are a eugenicist.
Scratch an anti-vaxer, you'll find a racist eugenicist that wants your children to die.
