I wanted to talk about heads in the sand.
People who will cry "Science!" and "Vaccines!",
but refuse to actually look at what is happening
around them in the world.
They proclaim themselves to be infinitely
rational, backed by infinite science, and
that anyone who disagrees with them is obviously
stupid, or blind.
One of the greatest ironies of these people
is many of these people will say things like
"Why I Will Advocate For Vaccines Until My
Last Breath" and "I will fight you anti-vaxxers
until the day I die."
Stuff like that.
This is not how a truly open-minded, scientific
mind works.
This is a sure sign of a closed mind, a person
that has announced to the world they will
refuse to even consider any new information.
If you were truly scientific, and rational,
you would realize that our understanding of
the world is in constant flux, constantly
improving, we hope, with every new discovery.
How could you proclaim something like this
to be not worthy of your investigating when
there is so much we don't understand?
This is what drives scientific research- the
humility to admit we don't understand it all.
Why else would any vaccine-related research
be going on if we completely understood how
they work, how they interact with the immune
system?
Here's what an open-minded person sounds like
for you snowflake scientists out there who
don't know.
This what it means to be truly Pro-Science:
I am CURRENTLY anti-vaccine.
I would never say that I will advocate against
vaccines until my dying breath.
I may see some research that changes my mind.
Hopefully science will one day come up with
a safe way to impart actual immunity to people,
rather than a short-sighted "Protection" that
wanes after a few years and does nothing to
create herd immunity.
If that happens, then you will see me quickly
move out of the Anti-Vaccine camp.
Until then, I keep my eyes open.
I read the studies.
I hope.
I pray.
But for me to say "I will never, ever stop
being an Anti-Vaxxer" is just foolish.
Vaccines are CURRENTLY too dangerous and not
working well enough to justify their use.
The human immune system is CURRENTLY far superior
to anything we have cooked up in our labs.
Maybe one day that will change.
You'll be the first to know if I see it happen.
Unfortunately, the newest vaccine technology,
recombinant DNA vaccines, doesn't appear to
be trending well.
Who knows, maybe they'll figure it out and
turn it around.
"But the science is settled," idiots will
say.
They mean well- they really do.
There is a paragraph or two from one of my
favorite authors, Thomas Sowell, that explains
this whole thing perfectly.
He says: Evidence is fact that discriminates
between one theory and another.
Facts do not "speak for themselves."
They speak for OR against competing theories.
Theories can be devastated by facts but they
can never be proven correct by facts.
What empirical verification CAN do is to reveal
which of the competing theories currently
being considered is more consistent with that
is known factually.
Some other theory may come along tomorrow
that is still more consistent with the facts,
or explains those facts with fewer, clearer,
or more manageable assumptions.
Run that little blurb over a time or two to
try and get it.
This bubblegum world we live in makes critical
thinking more difficult than it used to be.
The science is not settled on anything until
we have exhausted our discovery of facts,
and that will thank goodness, never happen.
I think there is probably no more acute display
of head in the sand ignorance than with the
Andrew Wakefield Lancet paper story.
I have tried to talk to many, many people
about what happened, and the first thing I
ask them: Have you read both sides of the
story?
Have you looked at both sides?
"Well what do you mean?"
I mean, have you read another account of what
happened- like one that wasn't written by
a medically untrained reporter?
Like say, a book Dr. Wakefield himself wrote
to give his side of the story.
Have you ever read anything like that?
"Well no!
I don't want to give him any money- that would
just benefit his lies and deception!"
Ok, I've got the book.
It's already bought and paid for, and I'll
donate another $20 to Merck in your name,
so just take the book and read it.
Then we can talk.
"No- I couldn't stand to give that horrible
man my time."
OK, how can you debate this story if you've
only heard one side of things?
"Well everyone knows what he did, and what
he said.
It's common knowledge!"
But isn't that kind of the basis for human
knowledge, to gain a broad perspective on
something that happened, to try and look at
it from a variety of angles?
"Well yes, but this one is so obvious- what's
there to see?"
What's your opinion of Christopher Columbus,
I'll ask them?
What did you read in your elementary school
text books?
He "discovered" America and made good friends
with all the natives and they decided to start
a country together?
Do you think it's any different than reality?
Or did you read some other viewpoints since
then that changed your mind about it a little?
I can not believe the absolute refusal people
have when I tell them, "If you want to talk
about Wakefield, read both sides of the story,
then I'll talk."
It is an exercise in futility to try and debate
this when the only thing you've read is a
story about a story about a report from an
article about a report, all of whom had authors
who seemed predisposed to destroy Wakefield's
career.
If you make a single comment about this situation,
and have never read both sides of the story,
you come across as such an uninformed idiot,
I would revoke any degree of higher learning
you had achieved if I could.
What more basic function of critical thinking
is there other than to read multiple sides
of a story?
Isn't that what we were taught to do in like
4th grade?
Isn't that what our entire judicial system
is based on?
What are you so afraid of?
Why can't you bring yourself to do it?
If I told you I wanted to debate evolution,
and that I had read a book called "What does
the Old Testament say about Creation?" to
prepare, do you think we would have a very
engaging discussion?
Would it be worth your time?
Would you think of me as small-minded, illiterate,
stupid?
That's what it feels like when you open your
mouth about the Wakefield story after having
read some Gizmodo and Huffington Post articles
about him.
There are two very different sides to this
story, if you haven't ever read them.
Just take my word for it.
I'm not going to say anything more than that.
Read his book- it's called Callous Disregard,
if you want to stop liking like a complete
fool every time you open your mouth and mention
Wakefield.
I'm not saying you're going to walk away an
anti-vaxxer convert- nothing at all like that.
I'm just saying, you might be able to carry
on a human conversation about the subject
without both sides of the equation.
I'm going to spend this week going through
a couple of articles from those with their
heads so deep in the sand they're unable to
breathe.
3 articles that show the predictable, the
irrational and the extravagant lengths people
will go to justify their heads in the sand.
I hope you can watch all 3.
It may help you understand what it's like
to have an open mind.
It may help you have the courage to wake up,
and pull you head out of the sand.
And that is my incredible opinion.
