Treating with respect
| 9 February, 2011 | Richard P. Grant |
11
|
|
It’s all too easy to call someone stupid when they disagree with you. Understandable, but wrong nonetheless.
Some of these people, who don’t seem to understand science or reason, may be politically motivated. Others may be genuinely confused, uncertain, or scared and vulnerable.
This does not mean they’re stupid.
The first type of person is difficult to argue with, and even when faced with overwhelming evidence is unlikely to change their mind. Calling them names doesn’t help—it’s probably safest to state the rational arguments, and walk away. Engage with people who are genuinely seeking truth, but for the politically motivated there is nothing you can do.
But being insulting, rude or dismissive to the second group is counterproductive, and makes you (and your cause) look bad. These may be intelligent people, but missing facts or skills to make sense of data, or who are too close emotionally to a problem to be entirely rational.
Just after my first daughter was born, the whole MMR/autism thing blew up. I was a senior scientist at a small biotech company in Cambridge. I had no idea whether the press reports could be believed, or what was behind those reports even if true. I didn’t have ready access to the Wakefield paper, and I wouldn’t have known how to deal with clinical data anyway. Unwilling to risk the MMR, my daughter’s first jab was a single vaccine. As a parent I was (and still am) emotionally invested in the health of my daughter. My resolve was only hardened by the actions of the then-Prime Minister, who refused to say whether his infant son had received the triple immunization, and the government’s nannying of the issue.
Then, when it became apparent that the basis for the autism link was specious, I changed my mind and consented to the MMR for subsequent boosters and my second daughter. That I changed my mind doesn’t mean I was stupid—it simply means I became more informed.
Which is why this video is important.
People who refuse vaccines for their children, or use homeopathy, might well be wrong. But they are not necessarily stupid, and we shouldn’t treat them as such.
|
|
previous post
I do not know what to call such persons. I do know that I had my children vaccinated. It is an odd thing that some persons are perfectly happy to be a free rider on the herd immunization issue. If you are more than happy to allow others to put their children at “risk”, but you are not willing to do so with your own, it makes you a craven feckless coward at least, and a less than honorable person at that. Would you be willing to say, directly, to another person, “Sure, vaccinate your child. That way, I don’t have to vaccinate mine. You can assume all the risks for your child, and I will get all the benefits for my child.”
What term is appropriate for that kind of selfishness?
At the time that you had to decide about vaccinating your daughter, Richard, the Wakefield paper had been published in a well-respected journal and I think it’s entirely understandable that you would err on the side of caution. The situation is different now, however; Wakefield’s paper has been identified as fraudulent, and huge amounts of information are available repudiating the claims of the anti-vax movement. This information is not restricted to medical journals, and it can be accessed by anyone willing to do a quick google search. People today who are emotionally invested in their children’s welfare would presumably want the best information possible about vaccinations, and that information is out there for them. Some may not bother to inform themselves and that might make them lazy, but not necessarily stupid. Some may think that Jenny McCarthy actually knows something about vaccines. And, although it’s not politically correct to say so, some are probably stupid. (There *are* stupid people in the world, after all.) Your point about treating people, even stupid people with respect is well taken, however, and it is certainly true that treating people as if they are stupid (even – perhaps especially – if they are) will not be helpful in trying to change their minds on any subject.
Michael and Paul, thanks for your comments.
You’re right about the selfishness Paul, and yes, people do want the best for their children, Michael. But we have to be careful to determine where people are coming from. Those who have enough knowledge to want to rely on herd immunity are similar, in my mind, to those who realize that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that burning gasoline produces CO2, but won’t take steps to reduce their 20,000 mile a year car habit.
I have more sympathy for people who are persuaded by McCarthy and her ilk: because we do get information from the media and we do (God help us) trust celebrities. And it’s very confusing for these people, even those who are not stupid (and I agree with your non-politically correct assessment!). When the care of their children is paramount, who do they trust? especially when scientists seem to spend a lot of time arguing amongst themselves.
There’s yet another possibility that you didn’t put on your list. There are people who don’t tolerate vaccines. I’m one of them. When I got a smallpox vaccination as a child I got terribly sick from it. Once I had a near fatal reaction to a flu vaccination back in the 70’s. In recent years, every time I got a flu vaccination I got a worse reaction in my arm until I finally decided to call it quits on the flu vaccinations. There is no recognition of people not tolerating vaccinations. The medical community needs to be more willing to consider that people exist with an unknown mechanism for not tolerating vaccinations. I’m not allergic to eggs. It’s something else. Just because vaccinations are better than non-vaccinations statistically does not mean that every single person will never have an adverse reaction. The fact that vaccinations become such a religious issue, true believers vs true unbelievers leaves reality out of the loop. It’s not black and white. A lack of details about vaccines makes it impossible for consumers to figure it out on their own what in these products is actually the problem for some people? But first the true believers have to have the idea there could be a problem. The fact that we exist is probably one factor that fuels skepticism of the vaccine holy grail. The solution will be to stop viewing vaccines as perfect and start looking at them with more scrutiny.
Thanks for your comment h. To be honest, I don’t think that anybody who promotes the value of vaccines would ever deny there can be problems for individuals—just as every drug has side effects, so does every vaccine, to a greater or lesser extent. That’s not really what’s being discussed here, though (please correct me if you think it is!)
I think that the line “There is no recognition of people not tolerating vaccinations” is not entirely true. See http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/166800.php for example.
And yes, statistically vaccination is good for the human race—but it must be pretty nasty to be one of those, like yourself, who are intolerant. Numbers don’t mean a lot when you’re the exception. Of course, the problem that we have is that some, with certain political agendas perhaps, use such exceptions to make a rule.
I was left permanently disabled with an autoimmune illness by the military biowarfare vaccine program. No statistics exist to know how many others have suffered the same fate, other than limited studies by the DoD that are not powerful enough to have found rates of serious adverse reactions in less than about 1% of recipients.
The simple fact the article does not consider is that medical authorities sometimes get things wrong. The threat posed by biological weapons to, for example, sailors on warships based in Japan, is minimal, and it is almost certain that the biowarfare vaccine program is doing more harm than good to many of its recipients.
Any rational discussion of adverse reactions to vaccines in children must note that there has never been one single study into the unintended consequences of the combined impact of 36 doses by age 18 months, despite the extending of the vaccine program in recent decades being broadly accompanied by an increase in disorders of the immune system. The assumption that decreasing levels of antigen in vaccines enables they can be simultaneously administered is just that, an assumption; meanwhile the emerging sciences of the microbiome and metagenome provide examples of thus far unconsidered mechanisms by which vaccines and their potential contaminants could cause chronic illness.
As well as not being rude to those who disagree with you, it is important not to be condescending, as those people may just be right.
That medical authorities get things wrong isn’t disputed. Please check out this post.
One of the first things you learn as a scientist is that there are always unforeseen/unintended circumstances or effects. In fact, if science teaches us anything it’s that, a priori, we’re most likely to be wrong about things. Which is why we record everything and try to draw patterns, and have statistics.
It’s also why we don’t accept any statement as being true in the absence of evidence.
And of course, you have to look at the whole picture and realize that (on average—of course there are tragic exceptions), the human race has never been healthier, or as long-lived, and wonder just exactly why that is.
People have learned to distrust the government and the elite. We know they lie, we just do not know why. Unless you are ‘connected’ you better learn to be your own lawyer, doctor, financial analyst, etc. We now EXPECT to get false information that benefits someone else. Distrust in vaccines, doctors, lawyers, news media, politicians or anyone with authority is just a sign of the times.
I studied biology and my family is fully immunized.
I have an autistic daughter and I saw her
regression after her childhood immunizations.
I think she has genetic predisposition to vaccine damage.
According to research (see below articles) genes involved in autism
are immune genes…..a kid with a dysregulated immune response
reacts badly to viruses and vaccines derived from living viruses.
It makes sense to me.
Macrophage migration inhibitory factor and autism spectrum disorders.
Grigorenko EL, Han SS, Yrigollen CM, Leng L, Mizue Y, Anderson GM, Mulder EJ, de
Bildt A, Minderaa RB, Volkmar FR, Chang JT, Bucala R.
Child Study Center, Department ofPsychology, Yale University, New Haven,
Connecticut 06519, USA. elena.grigorenko@…
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Autistic spectrum disorders are childhood neurodevelopmental
disorders characterized by social and communicative impairment and repetitive
and stereotypical behavior. Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) is an
upstream regulator of innate immunity that promotes
monocyte/macrophage-activation responses by increasing the expression of
Toll-like receptors and inhibiting activation-induced apoptosis. On the basis of
results of previous genetic linkage studies and reported altered innate immune
response in autism spectrum disorder, we hypothesized that MIF could represent a
candidate gene for autism spectrum disorder or its diagnostic components.
METHODS: Genetic association between autism spectrum disorder and MIF was
investigated in 2 independent sets of families of probands with autism spectrum
disorder, from the United States (527 participants from 152 families) and
Holland (532 participants from 183 families). Probands and their siblings, when
available, were evaluated with clinical instruments used for autism spectrum
disorder diagnoses. Genotyping was performed for 2 polymorphisms in the promoter
region of the MIF gene in both samples sequentially. In addition, MIF plasma
analyses were conducted in a subset of Dutch patients from whom plasma was
available.
RESULTS: There were genetic associations between known functional polymorphisms
in the promoter for MIF and autism spectrum disorder-related behaviors. Also,
probands with autism spectrum disorder exhibited higher circulating MIF levels
than did their unaffected siblings, and plasma MIF concentrations correlated
with the severity of multiple autism spectrum disorder symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS: These results identify MIF as a possible susceptibility gene for
autism spectrum disorder. Additional research is warranted on the precise
relationship between MIF and the behavioral components of autism spectrum
disorder, the mechanism by which MIF contributes to autism spectrum disorder
pathogenesis, and the clinical use of MIF genotyping.
P
It depends on how you define “stupid.” If by “stupid” you mean unable to understand and evaluate simple and obvious facts, then yes, indeed, they are stupid. If you mean that they believe in magic by anyother name, then yes, indeed, they are stupid. If you mean that they don’t have any information, then the proper term is ignorant, and not stupid.
Since there is a plethora of information about the benefits of vaccination and the lack of value of homeopathy that are easily obtainable to everyone, then ignorance is no longer an excuse.