[Dig1t]

I can tell you that whatever education you think has been put out there, it’s absolutely not reaching its intended audience, and much of what does land is actually doing the opposite of what it intends to do. Example: Colbert’s “The vax scene” episode did more to damage the reputation of vaccines than I think anyone realizes.

Yes discrediting Andrew Wakefield helps, but you have to fight the incorrect ideas about the vaccines themselves not just one of the people who pushed these ideas.

One example: many skeptics ask the question “if vaccines are so safe then why are they immune to lawsuits?”. This is a very reasonable question for people to ask! And honestly, responding to this common sense question with derision and insults hurts your cause. The establishment needs good responses to questions like this and they need to be repeated in a non-hateful way.

99% of media and online conversation is just condescending. Like look at the comments in this HN post, most people are extremely unkind.

“Extreme derision and insults” is going to make the problem so much worse.

[mr-wendel]

Let's also recall that almost nobody changes their mind when engaged in these types of conversations, and the more confrontational the more likely you cement existing biases.

Where you do stand to make a difference is with more casual observers and people on the fence. A show of patience and respect bolsters a good argument better than perhaps even the argument itself.

What does tend to change people's minds is forming good relationships with people who hold differing opinions and their desire to make the relationship work. Logic and rationality are secondary considerations. Hopefully they will accept better conclusions for these reasons, but it's quite unlikely without adopting the kind of approach espoused by Dig1t.

[aredox]

>Colbert’s “The vax scene” episode did more to damage the reputation of vaccines than I think anyone realizes.

Oh yeah, perfectly rational to make health decisions based on a mediocre skit by a comedian you don't like and almost never watch... The people around you are perfectly sane people who are not trying to find any excuse to justify their tribal, cultish beliefs.

The solution is easy: vaccine proponents, whoever they are must be absolutely perfect in every way, shape and form.

Otherwise vaccine sceptics will instead prefer to believe the rich son of a political dynasty (who is certainly not a member of the establishment!) who had a brain worm and dumped a dead bear in central park and who has been proven a liar dozens and dozens of times.

Really wonder why vaccine "sceptics" apply a double standard... What could be the motivation behind this inconsistency? Truly a mystery. We should engage them in debate, we could certainly convince them (if we, and everyone and anyone who could be linked to vaccines, are perfect).

[bdhe]

> One example: many skeptics ask the question “if vaccines are so safe then why are they immune to lawsuits?”. This is a very reasonable question for people to ask!

I hear this point cited and I googled it and it took me like 3 seconds to get this answer: https://www.chop.edu/vaccine-education-center/science-histor...

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Inj...

Seems like a reasonable answer to me! The question is, why don't vaccine skeptics just look things up and try to educate themselves?

===

Why are vaccine manufacturers shielded from liability? A 1982 TV news report entitled Vaccine Roulette suggested that the whole-cell pertussis vaccine was the cause of permanent brain injury. Subsequent studies indicated that while the whole-cell vaccine was associated with febrile seizures, it was not associated with long-term brain damage. However, those studies took at least 10 years to exonerate the vaccine.

In the meantime, as vaccine manufacturers were flooded with lawsuits, some decided to stop making vaccines rather than face continued legal pressures. Consequently, production dropped, leading to concerns about vaccine supply and subsequent vaccination rates.

By shielding vaccine manufacturers from liability, Congress assured that future generations would be protected from devastating diseases. A common misconception is that this process completely shields vaccine makers. However, a plaintiff may file a civil court claim against vaccine companies after filing a claim in the VICP if they reject the vaccine court's decision.

[aredox]

Will Dig1t reply to this? Will he try to show this to the many vaccine sceptics he knows of and update us on how they reacted?

Because usually that's what happens when you "debate" with vaccine sceptics: they just accuse you of being mean/pretentious/know-it-all/arrogant/etc., they move goalposts, they switch subjects, or they completely ignore you, disappear and come back later elsewhere asking the exact same "questions" as if your discussion never happened.

Because they have reached a point where hey are so much wrong that admitting it would be admitting they have been very stupid, very unjust and very bad people. And it requires a lot of backbone to own such a personal failure. So instead they double down.

[Dig1t]

So yeah if you read that explanation but can’t understand why that isn’t convincing these people, then I would say you are not really trying to understand these people’s concerns. This explanation is basically making the anti-vaxxer argument for them. An uncharitable/skeptical interpretation of their explanation is one that hurts the cause. It basically sounds something like “drug companies couldn’t show their vaccines were safe enough like other drugs, but the government still wanted a supply of them anyway so they had to give them special protections”.

Basic question: so why does this stable supply concern apply to vaccines but not any other types of medicine? If you have concerns that one of these vaccines has some serious side effect, why is it important to have a stable supply of it?

I just feel like asking these types of basic questions leads to such vitriol like in your response, it’s no wonder nobody trusts you.

[bdhe]

I'm still confused. I don't think it says anywhere that drug companies couldn't show their vaccines were safe enough. I think it said that if we allow indiscriminate lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers, WHILE longer-term trials are still pending, this disincentivizes production.

If you believe vaccines are a good thing, generally speaking, you want to incentivize production. You also make it sound like there are no remedies. I don't think that is the case at least from this sentence. Do you disagree?

> However, a plaintiff may file a civil court claim against vaccine companies after filing a claim in the VICP if they reject the vaccine court's decision.

[aredox]

>It basically sounds something like “drug companies couldn’t show their vaccines were safe enough like other drugs

Can you point exactly where in the given link there is something that could be summarized or interpreted as such?

“drug companies couldn’t show their vaccines were safe enough" is nowhere to be found. What I can see is this:

"A 1982 TV news report entitled Vaccine Roulette suggested that the whole-cell pertussis vaccine was the cause of permanent brain injury. Subsequent studies indicated that while the whole-cell vaccine was associated with febrile seizures, it was not associated with long-term brain damage. However, those studies took at least 10 years to exonerate the vaccine."

Vaccine manufacturers demonstrated their product was safe before being put to the market (that's the reason for the different "phases"). A concern was raised by a TV news report. The vaccine manufacturers proved - after a long study - that it wasn't the case, their product was demonstrably safe.

Where have you found elements to support your assertion the linked references show “drug companies couldn’t show their vaccines were safe"?

[ryandrake]

All of these questions get answered over and over and over, with good answers, often backed by decades of medical research, delivered by everyone from the Surgeon General to contagious disease experts, all the way down to individual people's family doctors. If the evidence and research is not getting to people, it's because they are deliberately blocking it out. You can't bop people on the head and force them to get educated. And you can't "meet these people where they are" because where they are is a fortress that is specifically built to repel knowledge and expertise.

And, of course, when you point that out, it's attacked as condescending and derision. I, too, live in a community surrounded by these people. There is no reaching them, sadly.

[fzeroracer]

I don't care. I've spent likely far more time than you trying to argue against and correct these anti-vaccine behaviors and ideas. They always start with 'reasonable questions' that lead into insane nonsense and there is no correcting that stance no matter how much evidence you give to the contrary. People are extremely unkind because they're matching the same level of vitriol and shit spewed out by the anti-vaccine nuts and frankly most people are tired of it.