Science How to shutdown anti-vaxxers who ‘tell the most outrageous lies’ - SHUT THEM DOWN!!1!

How to shutdown anti-vaxxers who ‘tell the most outrageous lies’​

If ridiculous claims spouted by anti-vaccination activists are enough to make your blood boil, here’s how to shut them down.

If you’ve ever engaged with an anti-vaxxer, you’ve probably quickly found there is no reasoning with them, despite just how much evidence you present that proves them wrong.

Fortunately they represent a small portion of the Australian population, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t difficult conversations that can arise at the dinner table or in the workplace if you have family members, friends or colleague who fall into that group.

Their voices have only become louder amid a worldwide pandemic and a rushed but lifesaving COVID-19 vaccine rollout.

Vaccinating against COVID-19 is the easiest way for Australians to get their normal lives back, but millions are hesitant to get the jab.
News.com.au’s Our Best Shot campaign answers your questions about the COVID-19 vaccine roll out.

We’ll debunk myths about vaccines, answer your concerns about the jab and tell you when you can get the COVID-19 vaccine.
One big issue to unpack is a lot of the myths coming from anti-vaxxers.

If your tactic isn’t to retreat from the table or water cooler, delete or block said person from Facebook (sorry, uncle Bob) and make up excuses why your kids can’t play (conjunctivitis works a treat), there are ways you can soundly approach the topic.

Of course, that’s depending who you speak to.

“The trouble is these are beliefs people have like religion,” Professor Adrian Esterman, epidemiologist at the University of South Australia, says.

“Proof is irrelevant because it’s their belief. They truly believe it. There’s nothing you can do about it really. I can show people papers that say vaccines are safe but it’s irrelevant because they simply won’t believe it.”

Heated debates and pleas to vaccinate are happening everywhere from social media to the doctor’s office and they’ve been amplified since the coronavirus pandemic hit.

1613721032784.png

Experts say there is no use reasoning with conspiracy theorists such as Pete Evans. Picture: Instagram Source: Supplied

The simple fact is vaccination has been repeatedly demonstrated to be one of the most effective interventions to prevent disease worldwide.

Still, that’s not enough for uncle Bob who is the kind who embarrassingly shares “plandemic” posts from celebrity chef turned conspiracy theorist Pete Evans or that documentary that did the viral rounds, as well as videos from anti-mask Karens with lines like “we must fight for our freedom”, as if they’re starring in their own weird version of Braveheart.

If you haven’t given up hope yet, here are some of the ways you can approach an anti-vaxxer – if you dare! (Wishing you the best of luck).

HOW TO RESPOND TO ARGUMENTS AGAINST VACCINATION

Dr Tom Aechtner, senior lecturer at The University of Queensland and member of the Australian Vaccine Response Alliance, says one piece of advice is to make pro-science messaging simple, easy to read, and understandable to non-specialists.

“This is something that I personally struggle with, but it’s advice that I always need to be thinking about,” he says.

“The goal should be to make pro-vaccine messages easier to grasp, read, and listen to.”

A 2013 Australian Government guide on “responding to arguments against vaccination” says if people raise arguments against vaccination, the best approach is to listen to the person’s concerns, explore their reasoning and then tailor appropriate information to the person’s individual circumstances and education levels.

People should avoid downplaying concerns or offering overtly personal opinions, respect differences of opinion and consider the personal, cultural and religious background that may influence a person’s decisions about vaccination.

Instead of getting bogged down in studies and references, it’s best to keep it simple and refer them to resources provided by the Department of Health.

1613721072550.png

:story:

THE MOST RIDICULOUS THINGS ANTI-VAXXERS SAY

If you’re unfortunate enough to know someone tied up in the Australian Vaccination-risks Network (better known as the AVN), the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission in 2014 warned the “AVN does not provide reliable information in relation to certain vaccines and vaccination more generally”.

“The Commission considers that AVN’s dissemination of misleading, misrepresented and incorrect information about vaccination engenders fear and alarm and is likely to detrimentally affect the clinical management or care of its readers,” they said.

Of course that hasn’t stopped the network and its president Meryl Dorey, who have been further fuelled during the pandemic.

A recent video posted from Ms Dorey encourages followers to join her for a “fully-referenced update of the information YOU need to know about the harm and death being caused by the new warp-speed COVID vaccines and the threats from social media censorship and No Jab No Job”.

Ken McLeod, who has been running the Stop the AVN group for over a decade, says the most ridiculous thing anti-vaxxers have said is that the COVID-19 pandemic a hoax, “that the virus doesn't exist and so on which is just rubbish”.

“The more dangerous myths they spread that vaccines cause autism, that vaccines kill people,” he says. “The other one we see occasionally is the vaccines contain tissue from aborted foetuses – that’s not true.”

RELATED: ‘Totally crazy’ anti-vax myths busted

Mr McLeod says it’s important to distinguish between ordinary worried people and anti-vaxxers “who tell the most outrageous lies”.

“It’s a bit like talking to flat earthers and quite often the two memberships overlap,” he says.

“It’s almost impossible to get them to see reason – you can present all the science in the world and they will still believe the earth is flat.”

Mr McLeod says his group tends not to worry about anti-vaxxers as much anymore because it’s those who are sitting on the fence or have genuine concerns that are the ones who need convincing.

“Social media, Facebook in particular, have a lot to answer for,” he concludes.

Another anti-vax campaigner that promotes conspiracy theories is Judy Wilyman, who was actually issued a doctorate from the University of Wollongong in 2016.

In a recent newsletter she claimed positive coronavirus tests could just be the common cold virus that’s being detected.

“It is not a ‘medical pandemic’ and there is no justification for emergency powers,” she continued.

One video she shared claims “this is not a vaccine” and “it is not a pandemic” but rather “all a facade to hide the economic reset that is occurring”.

As we know, Evans has been busy peddling anti-COVID vaxx info on social media through the pandemic.

Just last week he wrote, “The big question to ask … Will I allow the govt and big pharma to experiment on me when they have the belief of a ‘one size fits all approach’ even though we are all so divinely unique?”

In another post he wrote: “Please don’t ever let the govt put an untested Poison in your body, where the side effects include death and other life changing illnesses!

“From my perspective, I would say this is a complete clown show, however it is much more sinister than that and people’s lives and wellbeing are being risked here!

“The truth is coming out. Fear is being dismantled.”

In a piece for The Conversation, UK psychology researchers wrote tackling COVID-19 anti-vaccine narratives is paramount, pointing to a study focused on increasing digital media literacy as a route to reduce the widespread belief of misinformation.

“This involved giving people tips on spotting false news, which made it less likely to believe inaccurate headlines,” they wrote.

“Other research has shown that uncovering the rhetorical techniques typically found can reduce susceptibility to science denialism.

“Another solution is inoculation. Research has found that if people read factual, scientific information before anti-vaccine conspiratorial narratives, they can be more resistant to conspiracy theories.”

According to The Debunking Handbook, debunking will be more effective if you structure it in the following way:

1. Fact

2. Warn about the myth

3. Explain fallacy

4. Fact

Dr Aechtner highlights one of the recommendations from the book is that the most effective way to debunk misinformation is ensure that you provide a plausible, easily understood alternative to the myth that you are attempting to disprove.

“This is because: ‘When you debunk a myth, you create a gap in the person’s mind. To be effective, your debunking must fill that gap’,” he says.

“It isn’t quite enough to invalidate misinformation with facts. You also need to replace the debunked myth with a credible substitute narrative.

“Alternatively, you can fill the gap by providing a possible explanation as to why someone is spreading such misinformation, while exposing the persuasive techniques that are behind the debunked myth itself.”

Have you tried to reason with someone against the COVID-19 vaccine? Share your thoughts and experiences below.
 
There is a big difference between being against vaccinating in general and having reservations about a vaccine that was developed and rolled out quickly with no decent long term shit. If a vaccine has been out for decades sure, no problem, but with this especially when you can't sue manufacturers if it fucks you up yeah, I'd give it six months.

You don't win arguments with real ardent antivaxxers anyway and it's not worth the effort to try, best to not engage.
 
There is a big difference between being against vaccinating in general and having reservations about a vaccine that was developed and rolled out quickly with no decent long term shit. If a vaccine has been out for decades sure, no problem, but with this especially when you can't sue manufacturers if it fucks you up yeah, I'd give it six months.
They don't care, they just use the same strawman arguments that you either don't believe COVID-19 exists or that you're the same sort of person who believes that decades-old vaccines caused the 'tism or some other condition.
 
Yet again people endlessly railing on an easy conspiracy target makes everything even vaguely related an easier target. The fact that people legitimately believe that anyone thinking a vaccine produced experimentally for a virus in a family nobody has bothered to make a vaccine for before because it's essentially pointless is going to be a bit unsafe are wack jobs is sad.
 
One video she shared claims “this is not a vaccine” and “it is not a pandemic” but rather “all a facade to hide the economic reset that is occurring”.
It's hard to refute her claims when the World Economic Forum flat-out states that's exactly what they're doing.




COVID isn't a serious virus, it's just an excuse to instill whatever demented idea they think is Utopia.
 
I am not anti-vaxx but I do have my doubts when it comes to a lot of phrama companies. You know, those same companies that lie about the effects of medication, sell AIDs infected blood to nations without telling them, lie about the long term effects of other types of medication so as to not hurt their stock, lie about test results because they showed some negative effects they wanted hidden on their investments. Amazing how quickly people seem to forget that every year we end up seeing large cases where pharma is taken to court over its lies and the damage it causes. All that goes out the window, just inject yourself with this stuff no one really knows about.

They should list every court case phizer has been involved in, so you get a good look at the kind of company they are, because they have also been caught MANY times lying about results and test, so they can save money.
 
It's hard to refute her claims when the World Economic Forum flat-out states that's exactly what they're doing.




COVID isn't a serious virus, it's just an excuse to instill whatever demented idea they think is Utopia.
You mean you don't like gubmint excuses that allow them to force tyranny with some public support through fearmongering? What's not to love about the unpatriotic "patriot act", or the uncaring "cares" act? Fuck the Government, and DEATH to the World Government.
 
The idea that vaccines cause autism didn't come from the internet or the 'anti vax' crowd

It was a medical paper published in 1987 in The Lancet, Yale's peer reviewed medical journal.
It was Andrew Wakefield's study of 1998 that most heavily pushed the "vaccines = autism" thing, IIRC. He got the boot after it turned out he was paid to undertake the study by solicitors representing parents who believed that vaccines had given their kids autism. His data didn't stand up either, on closer examination, and he refused to submit his data to a controlled study for validation. He was likely picked by the solicitors after claiming, in 1995, that the measles vaccine gave people Crohn's disease, a claim which also turned out not to be supported by his study.
 
Vaccines = Autism is the thing they want people to think about, they dont want people to focus on deaths. The vaccines that cause infant death are often completely unnecessary for children due to the chances of their death from the diseases being like 0.00325%, but INSURANCE COMPANIES push care providers (doctors) to have their patients at 100% vaccination records per the CDC. They are financially incentivized to meet this 100% goal by the insurance company, it is a conflict of interest and you are never told about it.
 
It was Andrew Wakefield's study of 1998 that most heavily pushed the "vaccines = autism" thing, IIRC. He got the boot after it turned out he was paid to undertake the study by solicitors representing parents who believed that vaccines had given their kids autism. His data didn't stand up either, on closer examination, and he refused to submit his data to a controlled study for validation. He was likely picked by the solicitors after claiming, in 1995, that the measles vaccine gave people Crohn's disease, a claim which also turned out not to be supported by his study.
According to flip floppin' Fauci you don't need peer reviewed evidence based studies as long as you have meta data.

You must not believe in science.
 
I love how they never attempt to address the most common and reasonable concerns about the covid vaccine, like pregnant women not wanting to take it because there is no safety or efficacy data for that group. It's always "how to tell crazy uncle Jim Bob that Bill Gates doesn't want to microchip him."
 
One video she shared claims “this is not a vaccine” and “it is not a pandemic” but rather “all a facade to hide the economic reset that is occurring”.

Where's the lie? The burden of proof is on those who claim the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, when they haven't even proven (and have demonstrably covered up/manipulated data on) the true mortality of the virus itself. The vaccine has only received emergency FDA approval here in the States. But I suppose, like voting, we're just supposed to "trust the system."

I am not a Qtard but I will repeat one of their axioms: These people are sick.

eta: Hoi Polloi, great minds blah blah
 
Last edited:
I love how they never attempt to address the most common and reasonable concerns about the covid vaccine, like pregnant women not wanting to take it because there is no safety or efficacy data for that group. It's always "how to tell crazy uncle Jim Bob that Bill Gates doesn't want to microchip him."
It's a common tactic to lump reasonable arguments with the most outlandish and then pretend everyone thinks that way.

They spent a month saying that all 74 million people that voted for Trump were directly responsible for both Q-Anon and the Capitol Riots.

You'll see this in other places as well where they just straight up pretend your saying something else. Like the fat acceptance movement: "Well what Salubrious said was that he thinks obesity is unhealthy but he's really just concern trolling and what he MEANT where that fat women are ugly and undeserving of respect." Then they argue about what you "meant" and not what you actually "said."

Even better, they then will also say that you aren't allowed to "interpret" or "infer" anything that they are saying and have to argue them at face value. Like the transgender movement doesn't rape lesbians, but lesbians are problematic and bigots for turning down "dates" with trans women.
 
The idea that vaccines cause autism didn't come from the internet or the 'anti vax' crowd

It was a medical paper published in 1987 in The Lancet, Yale's peer reviewed medical journal.
Wakefield also literally made up the data for his own study, and when that was found out, they retracted it and he's been a laughingstock since.

I know you right-wingers hate them book-lernin science guys, but they know a lot more about this shit than you do
 
Wakefield also literally made up the data for his own study, and when that was found out, they retracted it and he's been a laughingstock since.

I know you right-wingers hate them book-lernin science guys, but they know a lot more about this shit than you do
Fauci literally told you not to wear a mask because there was no evidence they work and could actually increase the chances of you getting sick because of increased frequency of touch your face. That was April.

Fauci told you that there was no peer reviewed evidence that masks were effective and he wasn't willing to conduct such a study. That was June

Something something people who know science.

Oh, and bonus for telling people they should be wearing KN95s, you know the same respirator you spent all of 2020 telling people not to wear.

Are you still hiding under your bed to avoid the coof and collecting your tard bucks? Or were you never employed in the first place?
 
Back