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.
 
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?
Lol what? Those Fauci quotes were taken way out of context by you retard covidiots. He said it when it first started but then changed course when the data come in showing they worked.

Sorry that you right-wing retards are science-illiterate and thus hate all scientists, but instead of hatred try educating yourself.
 
Lol what? Those Fauci quotes were taken way out of context by you retard covidiots. He said it when it first started but then changed course when the data come in showing they worked.

Sorry that you right-wing retards are science-illiterate and thus hate all scientists, but instead of hatred try educating yourself.
Calm down.
 
Lol what? Those Fauci quotes were taken way out of context by you retard covidiots. He said it when it first started but then changed course when the data come in showing they worked.

Sorry that you right-wing retards are science-illiterate and thus hate all scientists, but instead of hatred try educating yourself.
Even if I gave Fauci every single benefit of the doubt, how does someone who's literal career is the director of Infectious Diseases for 36 years not know whether or not masks are safe until this past Spring?

Also, what new data came in that said that masks were safe that wasn't there before? Any actual data I've read is 50-50 at best, especially once you factor in human error in wearing them.
 
Even if I gave Fauci every single benefit of the doubt, how does someone who's literal career is the director of Infectious Diseases for 36 years not know whether or not masks are safe until this past Spring?

Also, what new data came in that said that masks were safe that wasn't there before? Any actual data I've read is 50-50 at best, especially once you factor in human error in wearing them.
sources please
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vulva Gape
sources please

He was especially interested in the answer to that question since at that time researchers had just started realizing the virus was super contagious because it could be spread by people who weren't yet showing symptoms of being infected.

"So you might not be sick and you may be spreading the virus through these particles just by speaking," Westman said.

So he asked Duke University physics professor Martin Fischer to test several types of masks.

Fischer built a simple box out of cardboard with an opening for a person wearing a mask to speak into.

He attached a green laser light to the box to illuminate the droplets and a cell phone camera to video the experiments, so they could count the droplets each mask allowed through.

Not only did he discover that speaking did indeed produce plenty of droplets, but that the material used in some masks, especially the neck gaiters and bandannas they tested, was so thin it actually put more respiratory particles in the air than the baseline test with no mask at all.

"We attribute this to the fleece, the textile, breaking up those big particles into many little particles," Fischer said. "They tend to hang around longer in the air. They get carried away easier in the air. So this might actually be counterproductive to wear such a mask. So it's not the case that any mask is better than nothing."
 
Not only did he discover that speaking did indeed produce plenty of droplets, but that the material used in some masks, especially the neck gaiters and bandannas they tested, was so thin it actually put more respiratory particles in the air than the baseline test with no mask at all.
Do the droplets contain the covid though? His experiment didn't test for that. What a gay scientist.
 

He was especially interested in the answer to that question since at that time researchers had just started realizing the virus was super contagious because it could be spread by people who weren't yet showing symptoms of being infected.

"So you might not be sick and you may be spreading the virus through these particles just by speaking," Westman said.

So he asked Duke University physics professor Martin Fischer to test several types of masks.

Fischer built a simple box out of cardboard with an opening for a person wearing a mask to speak into.

He attached a green laser light to the box to illuminate the droplets and a cell phone camera to video the experiments, so they could count the droplets each mask allowed through.

Not only did he discover that speaking did indeed produce plenty of droplets, but that the material used in some masks, especially the neck gaiters and bandannas they tested, was so thin it actually put more respiratory particles in the air than the baseline test with no mask at all.

"We attribute this to the fleece, the textile, breaking up those big particles into many little particles," Fischer said. "They tend to hang around longer in the air. They get carried away easier in the air. So this might actually be counterproductive to wear such a mask. So it's not the case that any mask is better than nothing."

He was especially interested in the answer to that question since at that time researchers had just started realizing the virus was super contagious because it could be spread by people who weren't yet showing symptoms of being infected.

"So you might not be sick and you may be spreading the virus through these particles just by speaking," Westman said.

So he asked Duke University physics professor Martin Fischer to test several types of masks.

Fischer built a simple box out of cardboard with an opening for a person wearing a mask to speak into.

He attached a green laser light to the box to illuminate the droplets and a cell phone camera to video the experiments, so they could count the droplets each mask allowed through.

Not only did he discover that speaking did indeed produce plenty of droplets, but that the material used in some masks, especially the neck gaiters and bandannas they tested, was so thin it actually put more respiratory particles in the air than the baseline test with no mask at all.

"We attribute this to the fleece, the textile, breaking up those big particles into many little particles," Fischer said. "They tend to hang around longer in the air. They get carried away easier in the air. So this might actually be counterproductive to wear such a mask. So it's not the case that any mask is better than nothing."
So wearing a neck gaiter is bad but wearing an actual mask approved by cdc is good?
 
Why can't the response to someone saying they are declining the vaccine be "OK I respect your choice if you change your mind let me know" / THE END. Holy shit this is so exhausting I can't ever remember a time of such societal pressure regarding such a deeply personal decision. People seem to honestly believe others owe it to them to make sacrifices for their personal safety. That's not how people operate. No one owes you anything. All of this greater good crap is level 10 manipulation. You are responsible for you and I am responsible for me and that's the end of the story.

The way these control freaks operate is really making me feel almost violent toward them. First anyone who didn't show Blm support and doesn't like being called a racist for disagreeing or isn't kissing black peoples asses is a nazi racist white Supremecist. Now you are not allowed to have COMPLETELY LEGITIMATE concerns about a "vaccine" or you're an anti vaxxer. They love name-calling and shaming. They think this is how they are going to get people to conform and do what they want. Well I'm at the point where you can call me any name you like, you can just fuck off.

And all of this believe the science garbage? These people have basically no access to real science they're believing scientists. They don't even know the difference. They're believing people in white coats that are feeding them selective information that has been interpreted by them. I am at the point where I have given up hope. I think the vast majority of people out there buying into this honestly have some sort of brain damage or mental disorder. They have lost their ability to reason and think rationally.
 
Why can't the response to someone saying they are declining the vaccine be "OK I respect your choice if you change your mind let me know" / THE END. Holy shit this is so exhausting I can't ever remember a time of such societal pressure regarding such a deeply personal decision.
Because this is a deadly pandemic? Your retarded individualism isn't going to save you now. Anti-vaxxers are putting millions of people at risk.

I think the vast majority of people out there buying into this honestly have some sort of brain damage or mental disorder.

Nice projection.
 
Last edited:
Because this is a deadly pandemic? Your retarded individualism isn't going to save you now. Anti-vaxxers are putting millions of people at risk.
I believe covid is real but the "deadly pandemic" classification is questionable. I am confident that the truth will come out eventually and I do not give a shit right now if this sounds insane or triggers anyone. Go ahead and insult me I don't care. Truth is like the sun, you can shut it out for a time but it's not going away. I have seen enough being in a Hotspot and working in Healthcare to know that this is not what a lot of people have believed.
 
Last edited:
Vaccines work there's no doubt about that. Smallpox and Polio didn't just disappear on their own. There's so much shady shit going on around COVID I honestly don't blame people for being skeptical in this case. After everything that has happened over the past 5 years I don't believe there is a single person in any position of authority who has my best interests at heart and I sure as shit am going to be careful with a vaccine they cooked up in a year for a crisis that is very obviously manufactured by the same people trying to push it.
 
According to The Debunking Handbook, debunking will be more effective if you structure it in the following way:
I...I...I'm gonna...DEBOONK!
“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.”
'Papers' can be forged, falsified, and manipulated.
The simple fact is vaccination has been repeatedly demonstrated to be one of the most effective interventions to prevent disease worldwide.
Other vaccines 'work.' Therefore, this thing we call a 'vaccine' works.

For someone screaming about 'REASON' he pulled out that false equivalency pretty quick.

“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.
I would hope that the goal is to tell the truth and be sincere, rather than behave like sociopaths who will say whatever they think their target wants to hear to get said target to do what the sociopath wants, but hey, I'm not the government.
 
'Papers' can be forged, falsified, and manipulated.
Yep, even with peer review, shoddy papers constantly get passed on. A notable one would be that soy milk paper funded by the meat industry with very vague and disingenuous portrayal of numbers. These are constantly cited by people who criticise veganism.

On the other end, there's egg and dietary cholesterol related papers being misused to push the "egg yolk bad" notion. I could rant on how there's been many breakthroughs gutted by peer review but I think people get the point already.

The problem is most don't read pass the abstract, some just skip to the conclusion or read the executive summary. Most aren't even educated to read these papers, but larping is always fun, it's an ego-boost.

I'll take that jab when it's 100% safe and there's better options.
 
Even if I gave Fauci every single benefit of the doubt, how does someone who's literal career is the director of Infectious Diseases for 36 years not know whether or not masks are safe until this past Spring?

Also, what new data came in that said that masks were safe that wasn't there before? Any actual data I've read is 50-50 at best, especially once you factor in human error in wearing them.
Because covid-19 was non-existent until just over a year ago? How the hell should he know data on something that didn't exist until then?
 
Because covid-19 was non-existent until just over a year ago? How the hell should he know data on something that didn't exist until then?
We've realized masks have a chance to prevent the transmission of disease for hundreds of years. Early attempts were heavily misguided as with the plague doctors, but during outbreaks in the early 1900s we finally figured out which kind at least did something of worth. You can find plenty of images of people wearing pretty much exactly the same kind of masks that we're forced to wear today. (Including eerily similar messaging)

1613949937500.png


including very similar behavior concerning pets.

Then:

1613950017300.png


1613950051400.png


Today:

1613950034100.png


It'd been established for over a century that masks did something, yet for a disease that affects the damn lungs our federal ''experts'' couldn't figure this out?
 
We've realized masks have a chance to prevent the transmission of disease for hundreds of years. Early attempts were heavily misguided as with the plague doctors, but during outbreaks in the early 1900s we finally figured out which kind at least did something of worth. You can find plenty of images of people wearing pretty much exactly the same kind of masks that we're forced to wear today. (Including eerily similar messaging)

View attachment 1939632

including very similar behavior concerning pets.

Then:

View attachment 1939633

View attachment 1939635

Today:

View attachment 1939634

It'd been established for over a century that masks did something, yet for a disease that affects the damn lungs our federal ''experts'' couldn't figure this out?
At least you're admitting masks work, unlike most of the tards on here
 
At least you're admitting masks work, unlike most of the tards on here
They at least do something, but whether it's worth it in the long run is something else. For barebones protection in short periods they're worth it. Having people wear them 24/7 when doing absolutely anything is not. And the point of highlighting the pet stuff is to show that today's mass hysteria is the same as yesteryear. Even the purposing jailing people for not wearing is pretty eerily on point.

If you believe that it's been known masks work for so long, then why were you defending Fauci, claiming there's "no data" even though we've been researching coronaviruses for a long time?
 
They at least do something, but whether it's worth it in the long run is something else. For barebones protection in short periods they're worth it. Having people wear them 24/7 when doing absolutely anything is not. And the point of highlighting the pet stuff is to show that today's mass hysteria is the same as yesteryear. Even the purposing jailing people for not wearing is pretty eerily on point.
So you think slowing the spread of a potentially, very deadly contagious isn't worth the very minor discomfort of wearing a mask? You right-wingers are such pussies.

If you believe that it's been known masks work for so long, then why were you defending Fauci, claiming there's "no data" even though we've been researching coronaviruses for a long time?
He knows a hell of a lot more about viruses than you and I put together and while we were studying coronaviruses, covid-19 was brand new. Why do you have such a hate boner for Fauci? Is it because he dared to contradict Dear Leader? This will shock you uneducated MAGAtards who hate them book-lernin science folks, but as new data comes in, scientists change their viewpoints. I know you guys think it's a sign of weakness to admit you were wrong and change you view, but it's actually a sign of strength
 
Back