Anyone who knows not so distant history understands that the benefits of the polio vaccine are enormous and beyond doubt. The problem however is that the medical establishment has lost its credibility, and largely for legitimate reasons. It uses the phrase “settled science” falsely, applying it to *extremely* unsettled topics such as how to treat gender dysphoric youth: even as the American association of pediatricians claims it’s all settled English and European medical establishment are voicing grave doubts! Origins of covid are another example, the medical establishment in the us went so far as to pressure social media to censor lab leak theory even as behind closed doors they themselves admitted knowing that it can’t be ruled out.
We have here a “boy who cried wolf” effect. The medical establishment has done enormous damages to its credibility by abusing the term “settled science” beyond any reasonable stretch, as had the msm, by parroting this uncritically. The results is giving an opening to dangerous conmen and crackpots. We need to acknowledge this if we are to fight this challenge effectively.
This. There is "settled science", but what is not settled is the application and use of this science. Like we know the science about how effective COVID vaccines are. What is less settled is how those vaccines should be deployed - through mandates? Which populations? How do we balance trade-offs? Much of that was set aside during the pandemic, terribly undermining science and public health. To parse your example, I'd argue we do know HOW to treat gender dysphoric youth, but the unsettled part is whether or not we should.
There's science, and then there's application of the science, a much thornier discussion that requires value judgements.
I find the MMR-autism argument particularly infuriating because, at its core, it's all argument that children getting autism is worse than children dying of preventable diseases. Even if the autism argument were true (which, to be clear, it's not), it's still a reprehensible moral position to argue that preventing a small number of cases of autism is more important than preventing a significant number of deaths.
"The entire upside to the debate strategy rests with the the conspiracy theorists."
But the alternative seems to be ceding the conversation to conspiracy theorists and letting them fill the vacuum with whatever nonsense their spouting. Engaging in debate won't win them over, but it can still win over a lot of low-information readers/viewers/voters. I feel like a lot of people pushing back on conspiracy theories assume that everyone is familiar with these supporting arguments on their side when this is not the case at all! Engaging in debate means giving people the basic building blocks to make an informed choice. Otherwise, you're letting the kooks do it for you and saying "hey, trust us, don't listen to those kooks." And with faith in institutions at an all-time low, people aren't buying it. I just don't get how less information and transparency is a good thing.
Build the wall! Around the US. Impose visas on Americans, and ask for proof of vaccination to grant them entry. We don't have to participate in their collective mass death experiment.
A pathological tactic of malignant narcissists is exhaust the normies so we stop fighting them.
Alas, I fear that this is but the tip of the iceberg.
Not all opinions deserve an airing.
Anyone who knows not so distant history understands that the benefits of the polio vaccine are enormous and beyond doubt. The problem however is that the medical establishment has lost its credibility, and largely for legitimate reasons. It uses the phrase “settled science” falsely, applying it to *extremely* unsettled topics such as how to treat gender dysphoric youth: even as the American association of pediatricians claims it’s all settled English and European medical establishment are voicing grave doubts! Origins of covid are another example, the medical establishment in the us went so far as to pressure social media to censor lab leak theory even as behind closed doors they themselves admitted knowing that it can’t be ruled out.
We have here a “boy who cried wolf” effect. The medical establishment has done enormous damages to its credibility by abusing the term “settled science” beyond any reasonable stretch, as had the msm, by parroting this uncritically. The results is giving an opening to dangerous conmen and crackpots. We need to acknowledge this if we are to fight this challenge effectively.
This. There is "settled science", but what is not settled is the application and use of this science. Like we know the science about how effective COVID vaccines are. What is less settled is how those vaccines should be deployed - through mandates? Which populations? How do we balance trade-offs? Much of that was set aside during the pandemic, terribly undermining science and public health. To parse your example, I'd argue we do know HOW to treat gender dysphoric youth, but the unsettled part is whether or not we should.
There's science, and then there's application of the science, a much thornier discussion that requires value judgements.
Another way to put this is "flooding the zone with shit."
I find the MMR-autism argument particularly infuriating because, at its core, it's all argument that children getting autism is worse than children dying of preventable diseases. Even if the autism argument were true (which, to be clear, it's not), it's still a reprehensible moral position to argue that preventing a small number of cases of autism is more important than preventing a significant number of deaths.
And it has EMPIRICALLY been shown that autism rates don't go away if you get rid of vaccines!
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC554056/
Debates are overrated. Whatever happened to - Proverbs 26:4 (ESV): "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself."
tDrumpf is providing rhetorical cocaine to the batshit crazy. I was gonna say rhetorical oxygen but cocaine is more accurate.
Never attempt a rational discussion with MAGAs, antivaxxers or the drunk at the corner of the bar.
It’s all about what they can’t say.
"The entire upside to the debate strategy rests with the the conspiracy theorists."
But the alternative seems to be ceding the conversation to conspiracy theorists and letting them fill the vacuum with whatever nonsense their spouting. Engaging in debate won't win them over, but it can still win over a lot of low-information readers/viewers/voters. I feel like a lot of people pushing back on conspiracy theories assume that everyone is familiar with these supporting arguments on their side when this is not the case at all! Engaging in debate means giving people the basic building blocks to make an informed choice. Otherwise, you're letting the kooks do it for you and saying "hey, trust us, don't listen to those kooks." And with faith in institutions at an all-time low, people aren't buying it. I just don't get how less information and transparency is a good thing.
I have an Autistic daughter at a residence since she requires 24 hour supervision. Vaccines have nothing to do with her condition.
Build the wall! Around the US. Impose visas on Americans, and ask for proof of vaccination to grant them entry. We don't have to participate in their collective mass death experiment.