Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know about the vax/autism issue, but if you're asking more in general about pseudo-science, I can tell you this:
Most people know so little about science (a HUGE and diverse field) that they can't tell the difference between real science and pseudo-science. By that, I mean that a LOT of people dismiss real science as pseudo-science. They don't know real science when the hear about it or see a discussion of it.
I think science education in this country really needs to be stepped up. There's so much that could be taught in the schools without even involving labs, but just presentations of facts, how things work on a basic level.
Ignorance is temporary and easily cured by education.
Stupidity is incurable and lasts a lifetime.
Ideally, yes.
Practically, often not.
All the evidence in the world won't convince the anti-vaxxers or the climate denialists or the creationists.
People deny for different reasons. Ignorance is one. But more compelling in denial of what is clearly established are two phenomena:
1) One's personal politics, and
2) A dislike of science in general
The former is self-explanatory. The latter is more of an embrace of the status quo. These people dislike scientific revelations. They want to keep on keeping on, so to speak. That which is familiar makes them comfortable. If a study shows that treatment is more effective than reducing substance abuse than incarceration, they reject it because incarcerating someone makes them feel good, whereas providing treatment makes them feel ripped off (they incongruously ignore that incarceration is, on bulk, more expensive than treatment). And so forth on down the line. They resent 'the elites' (ie, people who are educated and who do not cling to preconceived notions but instead see where the evidence leads).
People are very mentally inconsistent and our emotions have a lot more of an influence over our beliefs and decision making then reason. Even some the smartest people who have ever lived are prone to periods and strains of irrationality. There are some notable examples:
Alfred Russel Wallace: An accomplished biologist, also was a firm believer in paranormal activity
Linus Pauling: His odd obsession with vitamin C and the idea that it can cure cancer
Francis Crick: Panspermia
James Watson: His racist ideas about eugenics
Nikola Tesla: His death ray idea
This doesn't mean that these scientist work is not true or without merit. Its just that we as humans are prone to irrationality more then we are to reason and our ideas should always be allowed to be discussed and challenged regardless of our status in society.
You are asking the wrong question. You are asking why people believe what they believe. People can believe anything.
You should be asking yourself if what they believe is TRUE.
And that means going to the primary sources, not the media rants, fear mongering, pharmaceutical-sponsored studies.
It means understanding what a peer-review process is and how it works.
It means understanding that almost ALL medical article peer reviewers are paid consultants of pharmaceutical companies.
It means understanding that medical journals' revenue is mostly from drug ads.
It means that you need to understand how statistics are gathered, what the clinical trial information shows, what populations are being tested and the length of follow-up, and how that impacts the result of the studies.
It means understanding that the FDA does NOT, ever, do any studies on any drugs for safety or efficacy. They rely solely on what studies pharmaceutical companies provide (imagine that in law enforcement: "Oh, he said he didn't do it? Good enough, let him go ..."). So if 20 studies show the drug hurts people and 2 show it doesn't, guess what gets submitted to the FDA?
It also means understanding that vaccines are the only product in the USA where the manufacturer can never EVER be sued for harm. Ever. (The gov't arbitration system is founded through taxpayer dollars and the pharmaceutical companies are left out of that process. They can never be brought to court by an injured person.)
You are asking the wrong question. You are asking why people believe what they believe. People can believe anything.
You should be asking yourself if what they believe is TRUE.
And that means going to the primary sources, not the media rants, fear mongering, pharmaceutical-sponsored studies.
It means understanding what a peer-review process is and how it works.
It means understanding that almost ALL medical article peer reviewers are paid consultants of pharmaceutical companies.
It means understanding that medical journals' revenue is mostly from drug ads.
It means that you need to understand how statistics are gathered, what the clinical trial information shows, what populations are being tested and the length of follow-up, and how that impacts the result of the studies.
It means understanding that the FDA does NOT, ever, do any studies on any drugs for safety or efficacy. They rely solely on what studies pharmaceutical companies provide (imagine that in law enforcement: "Oh, he said he didn't do it? Good enough, let him go ..."). So if 20 studies show the drug hurts people and 2 show it doesn't, guess what gets submitted to the FDA?
It also means understanding that vaccines are the only product in the USA where the manufacturer can never EVER be sued for harm. Ever. (The gov't arbitration system is founded through taxpayer dollars and the pharmaceutical companies are left out of that process. They can never be brought to court by an injured person.)
Research. Investigate. Learn.
Just because a study was sponsored by a pharmaceutical company does not automatically mean that their results are untrue or fabricated. While a conflict of interest would arise suspicion of fabricated or unrealistic results one cannot assume that to be the case on all accounts without proper investigation. You seem to have done your research but you are demonstrating how even smart people are prone to illogical fallacies.
Why do otherwise intelligent people fall for pseudoscience?
Because it's easier than analyzing or thinking. It takes some effort to be informed and to stay ahead of the curve. It's effortless to allow someone else's BS to be your guide.
Of course it doesn't. But it is a logical conclusion that there should be some level of skepticism.
It's why the study itself needs to be examined, understood, discussed, as well as the mechanism of HOW the study gets published.. But too many people do not do this, I'd guess 99% of the public has never read a clinical trial or journal article about ANY of the vaccines.
And it is dangerous to form immobile opinions without doing so because the opinion, however well-intentioned, is UNINFORMED.
When the Wakefield study came out years ago (the first one, the original case study), the word "autism" is not mentioned in the study.
I went to the study because I wanted to read it myself and see what happened, fully expecting to believe everything that was being repeated in the media.
I was BEYOND shocked: The word is not in his study. You can't find it. His one observation was that those children that had disturbed gut flora had also had been given the MMR vaccine. It was an observation, with NO conclusion attached to it. It was anecdotal case studies of a number of his patients, never once mentioning autism.
It changed my view forever of how medical issues are reported in the news. I always go to the studies to find out what did/did not happen now. I don't trust the media. And what I believe is irrelevant. It is what is TRUE that matters.
It also means understanding that vaccines are the only product in the USA where the manufacturer can never EVER be sued for harm. Ever. (The gov't arbitration system is founded through taxpayer dollars and the pharmaceutical companies are left out of that process. They can never be brought to court by an injured person.)
Research. Investigate. Learn.
Your first paragraph is untrue. There are many circumstances for which a vaccine manufacturer can be sued, e.g. contamination, other manufacturing defects. A vaccine manufacturer cannot be sued for a design defect when someone has an adverse reaction, without first going through the "vaccine court", IOW the NVICA (National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act). https://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx?id=4627
"The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act [1] (NVICA) was established as a means of diverting lawsuits away from vaccine manufacturers and health care providers who administer vaccines. This was accomplished by the NVICA's establishment of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), which provides a means by which individuals with vaccine related injuries can be compensated based on a "no-fault" system. This means that compensation is not dependent on proving that vaccine manufacturers or health care providers were at fault by their negligence in providing vaccinations."
This system is actually far more plaintiff friendly than the regular tort system. The program is funded by a tax on vaccine manufacturers. Attorney's fees are paid through the program, win or lose. If the plaintiff is unhappy with the decision of the vaccine court, it can be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court of the US.
Your first paragraph is untrue. There are many circumstances for which a vaccine manufacturer can be sued, e.g. contamination, other manufacturing defects. A vaccine manufacturer cannot be sued for a design defect when someone has an adverse reaction, without first going through the "vaccine court", IOW the NVICA (National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act). https://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx?id=4627
"The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act [1] (NVICA) was established as a means of diverting lawsuits away from vaccine manufacturers and health care providers who administer vaccines. This was accomplished by the NVICA's establishment of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), which provides a means by which individuals with vaccine related injuries can be compensated based on a "no-fault" system. This means that compensation is not dependent on proving that vaccine manufacturers or health care providers were at fault by their negligence in providing vaccinations."
This system is actually far more plaintiff friendly than the regular tort system. The program is funded by a tax on vaccine manufacturers. Attorney's fees are paid through the program, win or lose. If the plaintiff is unhappy with the decision of the vaccine court, it can be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court of the US.
As a consumer you cannot take a vaccine manufacturer to court regarding harm from a vaccine. Period. That is the reason the vaccine court was established. Vaccines are the only product sold in the USA that have immunity from consumer lawsuits and the only product where the government stepped in to protect them from lawsuits. Why?
And who pays the tax? The consumer does.
The system is NOT friendly, BTW. A patient needs to get a physician to go on record stating that the patient was directly harmed by the vaccine. Most physicians refuse because it is career suicide. How do they tell parents that vaccines are safe after they have been to court stating that they have harmed a patient that now needs millions of dollars to pay for lifetime care?
Please look deeper into the matter than the cursory talking points. This is exactly what I meant when I said people need to INVESTIGATE. Take a few MONTHS looking into this, really research it, weigh all the evidence, including families that have tried to go to the NVICP and then let us know what you've found.
As a consumer you cannot take a vaccine manufacturer to court regarding harm from a vaccine. Period. That is the reason the vaccine court was established. Vaccines are the only product sold in the USA that have immunity from consumer lawsuits and the only product where the government stepped in to protect them from lawsuits. Why?
And who pays the tax? The consumer does.
The system is NOT friendly, BTW. A patient needs to get a physician to go on record stating that the patient was directly harmed by the vaccine. Most physicians refuse because it is career suicide. How do they tell parents that vaccines are safe after they have been to court stating that they have harmed a patient that now needs millions of dollars to pay for lifetime care?
Please look deeper into the matter than the cursory talking points. This is exactly what I meant when I said people need to INVESTIGATE. Take a few MONTHS looking into this, really research it, weigh all the evidence, including families that have tried to go to the NVICP and then let us know what you've found.
No vaccines are not the only product with limited liability laws. Guns are another. I happen to agree with Bernie Sanders that you shouldn't be able to sue a gun manufacturer because someone shot you. That's what those suits against vaccine manufacturers were like, back in the early 80s.
Please post some documentation of these physicians refusing to go on record. I've worked in a doctor's office and filed VAERS reports. The reports don't even assign causality. I recommend you read the VAERS website, since you are encouraging readers to investigate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do otherwise intelligent people fall for pseudoscience?
