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 are limits to how much I'll power level. Suffice it to say that unfortunately I no longer live in a rural setting where you can just arbitrarily drive to the front door of everywhere you want to go. And in weather like that, it doesn't take "long periods of time".
And in those times outside, you are near people constantly? I am skeptical of your argument and think you're just another anti-masker on here

I cannot think of a job that requires you to always be outside, on sidewalks, near other people with no breaks indoors or anything. Even waitstaff in restaurants that had outdoor seating (very unlikely during 110 degree weather) go inside now and then. Construction wouldn't have you near strangers constantly
 
It's obvious everyone should take every vaccine. The left feels very strongly about this and you know us lefties are all about speaking the truth and wanting what is best not just for us, but for everyone.
 
And in those times outside, you are near people constantly? I am skeptical of your argument and think you're just another anti-masker on here

I cannot think of a job that requires you to always be outside, on sidewalks, near other people with no breaks indoors or anything. Even waitstaff in restaurants that had outdoor seating (very unlikely during 110 degree weather) go inside now and then. Construction wouldn't have you near strangers constantly

You are free to be skeptical and think whatever delusions you like.

Is it anti-masker to say "I hate wearing these fucking things"? In that case, yes, I'm an anti-masker. Do you like it?
 
You are free to be skeptical and think whatever delusions you like.

Is it anti-masker to say "I hate wearing these fucking things"? In that case, yes, I'm an anti-masker. Do you like it?
I obviously prefer to not wear it, but I also am not a whiny bitch about it.
 
So your job requires you to be on the sidewalk for long periods of time? Errands require you to walk on sidewalks for long periods of time? You don't have a car? What do you do for work?
And in those times outside, you are near people constantly? I am skeptical of your argument and think you're just another anti-masker on here

I cannot think of a job that requires you to always be outside, on sidewalks, near other people with no breaks indoors or anything. Even waitstaff in restaurants that had outdoor seating (very unlikely during 110 degree weather) go inside now and then. Construction wouldn't have you near strangers constantly
1. Someone who hands out leaflets in the streets. There's a word for that but it's lost in my mind.
They are outside, on sidewalks, near plenty of people to distribute their paper waste, and they are required to displace themselves to places with plentiful people.

2. An on-foot food delivery person
Probably not a whole lot of these in western countries, but it's a thing in China. There's people who are required to wear a mask and their sole purpose is to deliver food to an allotted crowded area. Many shopping mall complexes are also surrounded by apartments, while being one themselves.

It's comments like this which makes me think you've never had to wagecuck. You raised the bar so high it's fucking retarded. The way you describe it, with a padding phrase "no breaks indoors" makes you a disingenuous faggot.

Restaurant wait staff can very easily rack up 30k steps in a day, be required to move in and out of some blazing hot fucking kitchen, and occasionally fetch shit from walk-in freezers that are very cold. It's a low skill job where a mask is an absolute nuisance.

A third one I can think of:
A friend of mine works a fryer in an open kitchen, he is required to wear a mask because he is in very close proximity to others. The small area can reach 45C even in winter, though Sydney winter is barely winter of course. This one doesn't require the person to walk around but fulfills the other points you made up. The amount of whining I've endured from his is unimaginable, but guess what, I feel his grievances, unlike your smug comments.

Oh and before you call me an anti-vaXxxxXXer too, I can't take the most popular jabs because they use some weird substance I'm allergic to, I've been told to wait and I will. My initial guess was mild discomfort from the allergies, but the doc told me to not push it. I won't take further bait and if you don't believe me, it's absolutely fucking fine.

Not commenting on the rest, I stopped following the covid shit and took a season break from here back in April. I found myself constantly looking up the most recent news and studies (I have access to this shit, unlike most of you tards who claim to be pro-science), it took a massive toll on my health. I figured it's just not worth it, "why should I jeapardise my health on this virus shit when I know inevitably governments will start to blame either the opposition party or another country, and I can just stay home and do my work?" It, worked out great.

Ok, I lied. Fuck it. The stuff you say are way too fucking retarded to ignore.

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.
Sure, his position changed as data came in. Respectable.

China, along with the neighbours such as Taiwan and South Korea were enforcing masks before I took my break. These countries had experience in handling SARS, which is another fucked up virus because a tiny population in China can't stop eating fucked up things that walk (civets). Covid-19 is also referred to as SARS-Cov-2.

The doctor, Li Wenliang (RIP) was the first to roughly test this virus and claimed it was 70% similar to SARS. Obviously he knew what he was doing but the instruments he had were commercial grade at best.

So, a virus that's 70% similar to SARS, as we initially knew, all the way back in fucking January, and China's response after it started spreading was "wear a fucking mask", the surrounding country's response was also the same; combined with their experience in SARS with no doubt helped them handling covid-19, it's reflected in their stats, this guy you're defending decides to not recommend it?

It only took new numbers for him to establish a fucking position? Really?

Here's an article posted in a journal:
Use of disposable face masks for public health protection against SARS Lange, J H.Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health; London Vol. 58, Iss. 5, (May 2004): 434.
Masks have been shown to provide an increased protection rate of 2.4 for mycobacterium tuberculosis in comparison with no mask. 4 As SARS CoV has been suggested to be spread by aerosol droplet and not to any significant degree by airborne transmission, 5 masks will probably provide some increased protection to the general public. However, as noted by Syed, it is necessary that they be properly used and changed frequently. As this virus can survive for 72 hours or more on surfaces, it is transmitted through fomite contact and infection can occur by mucus membranes (for example, conjunctiva) 5 ; thus, other personal hygiene practices (for example, hand washing) are of equal or greater importance. 4

For public health protection, use of masks can have some impact on preventing the spread of SARS CoV. However, this should be only one health practice that is encouraged by the public as others (for example, hand washing) are also of great importance.

Another:
For coughs, colds and SARS, wear a mask
David Scheifele, MD, Guest Editor
An important lesson from the SARS outbreak is how
readily respiratory viruses of moderate contagiousness
(droplet spread) can spread in health care settings when
infection control measures are lax. Whether SARS is afoot
or not, measures should be taken to ensure that medical
offices and hospital emergency rooms are safe places for dealing
with patients with respiratory infection. Sensible precautions
include wearing a face mask and goggles when
examining symptomatic children and washing one’s hands
immediately afterward, as dentists routinely do. The barefaced
examiner of coughing children should be considered
an image of the past, seen only in Norman Rockwell paintings
of a simpler time. The tradition of taking no personal
precautions is based on the fallacy that paediatricians have
experienced and are immune to every microbe that children
can cough at them. This is certainly not true of SARS, and
it is also not true of common viruses like influenza, respiratory
syncytial virus, rhinoviruses and adenoviruses, for which
immunity is imperfect or many variants exist. Paediatricians
may get sick with these and other agents and potentially
spread them to other patients, family members and coworkers.
Tuberculosis is another example of our potential vulnerability
to the coughing patient or parent. Office infection
control practices for tuberculosis are outlined by Matlow et al
(pages 624-626) in this issue and ought to prompt readers to
pay more attention to infection control practices in general.
A good place to start is to wear a mask with every patient
who has respiratory infection symptoms.

A meta-analysis of mask effectiveness during the SARS era:
Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Vittoria Offeddu, Chee Fu Yung, Mabel Sheau Fong Low, Clarence C Tam
Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934–1942
Meta-analysis indicated statistically significant superiority of
N95 respirators over medical masks against laboratory-confirmed
upper respiratory tract bacterial colonization (BRI) (RR = 0.46;
95% CI: 0.34–0.62) (Figure 4A) but not laboratory-confirmed
influenza (RR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.36–1.99) (Figure 4B) or other
viral infections (RR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.54–1.14) (Figure 4C).
We found evidence to support universal medical mask
use in hospital settings as part of infection control measures
to reduce the risk of CRI and ILI among HCWs. Overall, N95
respirators may convey greater protection, but universal use
throughout a work shift is likely to be less acceptable due to
greater discomfort.
Our analysis confirms the effectiveness of medical masks and
respirators against SARS. Disposable, cotton, or paper masks
are not recommended.
The confirmed effectiveness of medical masks is crucially
important for lower-resource and emergency settings lacking
access to N95 respirators. In such cases, single-use medical masks
are preferable to cloth masks, for which there is no evidence of
protection and which might facilitate transmission of pathogens
when used repeatedly without adequate sterilization [8].
So, medical masks and N95 respirators work. Cloth and paper ones aren't recommended. I assume you're pro-science enough to know what a meta-analysis is. The paper had very clear and conservative criteria for the data they decided to include.

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?
First known and verified covid-19 case traces back to mid-December in 2019. It was widespread in January. Now to answer your retarded Dr. bollocks-gobbling question, covid-19 was known to work and act like SARS. Data on SARS is readily available, Doctor Li tested the virus with a 70% resemblance, later tests reveals it's not just similar, it's also new. This all happened in 2 weeks. He was reprimanded by corrupted Wuhan CPC officials, and in less than 10 days, the news is out, a new virus is circulating.

Just because it's a completely fucking new virus doesn't mean we need to rush out data to make a simple recommendation that can be based on known knowledge and past studies on fucking SARS. This guy you're defending probably had a very comfortable career and didn't expect the virus to be that bad.

Bottom line: Medical masks and N95 respirators worked for SARS, it probably works for covid-19 which is very similar. Countries with experience in SARS handling are making masks mandatory, we should at least fucking recommend it.

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
Does he? Is covid-19 that new, when he had SARS just a fucking decade ago? A virus believed initially to circulate in China, then it was 70% resemblance, then it was high resemblance, less deadly but for more infectious?

Would you be defending him like this if he is a registered republican and Trump supporter? I feel like you'd be asking for his head in a platter. What new fucking data does he need to at least recommend masks that were known to be effective when SARS was around? Worst case, the mask is useless and humanity is fucked.

According to this timeline from a biased source: https://www.libertynation.com/the-fauci-timeline-sorting-fact-from-fiction/
17th of Fed 2020, he said there's no need to wear a mask in the USA. He then said later that younger people shouldn't worry.

Another, this site is way less biased: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...eline_of_slow-to-shift_messaging_143264.html#!
For example, PolitiFact’s Jan. 31 “reader’s guide to misinformation about the coronavirus” offers that “the likelihood of people in the United States catching the virus is minimal, at least for now” and does not include mask wearing among World Health Organization recommendations.
Similarly, FactCheck.org concluded on Jan. 30 that “[t]here is no need for people in the U.S. to wear face masks unless someone is infected with 2019-nCoV, or a health care worker is treating someone who is infected.”

The same day, Snopes pointed its readers to an Associated Press story headlined “Do Masks Offer Protection from New Virus? It Depends.”
Your nation is absolutely fucked when "fact checking websites" are a thing and decides to do some publications of their own.

All this media grift and flip flopping on the coof as a whole, and you wonder why people don't trust the state and medical officials? You can cry more about anti-science-mask-anti-vax-conspiratard-rightwing-MAGAtards all you fucking like, the seed of distrust was instilled right from the beginning. Your shitty weak minded officials fucked it, your MSM saw this as ad revenue and ran dumb gay little hit pieces. You can't blame normies with no academic knowledge when they can't trust officials because your politicians flip flop like a beached fish and instead of informing the public, your MSM decides to take photos of the fish and make faggy little hitpieces, or even somehow it's Trump's fault.

Aim your disease riddled mouth at the incompetent media and politicians, not misguided normies with high school education.
 
"oh what's in this thread?"
HHH shitting up yet another thread by fighting with paper cutouts of people he thinks he recognises
"nevermind..."

I knew HHH was brain dead but fuck, it's a completely different thing to flip flop on your arguments in the same fucking thread
 
"oh what's in this thread?"
HHH shitting up yet another thread by fighting with paper cutouts of people he thinks he recognises
"nevermind..."

I knew HHH was brain dead but fuck, it's a completely different thing to flip flop on your arguments in the same fucking thread
He fucking agreed with me that masks have been proven to work since the plagues of the early 1900s and in the previous post says there wasn't enough data for Fauci to recommend masks during the early days of Covid. He doesn't even know what his arguments are anymore.
 
He fucking agreed with me that masks have been proven to work since the plagues of the early 1900s and in the previous post says there wasn't enough data for Fauci to recommend masks during the early days of Covid. He doesn't even know what his arguments are anymore.
Fauci is right because he's a Democrat. This HHH guy isn't pro-science, he's a partisan goon and buys into the left/right party politics divide. If medical masks were effective during SARS, then it's probably effective against a virus with such high resemblance.

How does COVID-19 differ from SARS?​

COVID-19 and SARS are similar in many ways. For example, both:
  • are respiratory illnesses caused by coronaviruses
  • are believedTrusted Source to have originated in bats, jumping to humans via an intermediate animal host
  • are spread by respiratory droplets produced when a person with the virus coughs or sneezes, or by contact with contaminated objects or surfaces
  • have similar stability in the air and on various surfaces
  • can lead to potentially serious illness, sometimes requiring oxygen or mechanical ventilation
  • can have worsening symptoms later on in the illness
  • have similar at-risk groups, such as older adults and those with underlying health conditions
  • have no specific treatments or vaccines
However, the two illnesses and the viruses that cause them are also different in several important ways. Let’s take a closer look.
So if the elderly are at risk, why did Fauci say, and I'll paraphrase "young people don't need to worry, why not go on a cruise?"
What kind of fucking advice is that?
 
Back