Somewhat surprisingly, perhaps, there are still many vocal anti-vaccination activists in the midst of a pandemic. So I want to say a few things about anti-vaxxers:
1. I've interacted with several staunch anti-vaccination activists. I've even tried to repeatedly reason with them but to no avail.
2. Del Bigtree is a staunch anti-vaccination activist. In fact, he's one of the anti-vaxx movement's leading voices. However, Del Bigtree has zero medical background or expertise. He's basically a media personality.
3. For a corrective, I'd recommend people watch the first half (though the whole thing is informative) of this interview with Peter Hotez on Joe Rogan (and in my opinion Rogan was quite pushy with Hotez but Hotez weathered it well):
Hotez is a physician (MD) as well as a scientist (PhD). In fact, Hotez's own daughter has autism. See his book Vaccines Did Not Cause Rachel's Autism: My Journey as a Vaccine Scientist, Pediatrician, and Autism Dad. Hotez (who obviously loves his daughter) nevertheless argues for what the title of his book says.
No doubt many anti-vaxxers will dismiss Hotez out of hand (e.g. see some of the Amazon reviews of his book), but reasonable-minded people should at least give him a fair hearing. Hotez works with infectious tropical diseases in poor communities and developing vaccines for them. Specifically the most neglected diseases and vaccines (e.g. hookworm, schistosomiasis, Chagas disease).
By the way, since anti-vaxxers make a big deal out of people being compromised by money, these vaccines haven't generated any revenue for Hotez. In fact, these vaccines have virtually no potential to generate revenue, which, in fact, is why vaccine companies refuse to develop these vaccines.
And I'm not sure about Hotez's religious views (if any), so I could be wrong, but I think he might be Catholic.
4. Unfortunately many people today are "vaccine hesitant" precisely because of how large and powerful and influential the anti-vaccination movement has become. Anti-vaccination activists have multi-million dollar organizations as well as vocal lobbyists who lobby for anti-vaccination positions in Washington, DC and elsewhere. Anti-vaccination activists are extremely rich, powerful, and influential today. They're very effectively sowing seeds of doubt about vaccines today. It's become alarming. Such as with over 20 measles outbreaks across the US in the last 5 or 6 years. Anti-vaxxers like Bigtree endanger public health.
5. Finally, I have to wonder: If the coronavirus (COVID-19) turns out to be very contagious or infectious, and if it turns out to have a high fatality rate, and millions of Americans are dropping dead (let alone others around the world), but we are able to develop a successful vaccine for it, how many anti-vaccination activists will still be consistent and argue against vaccination?
Hawk, it is one thing to delete my triablogue post, but it is another to not even watch the video for the information it contains, which is in the territory of bigotry. I understand that you only want your narrative here, but other people may want to be informed about the matters concerning the trial run of the vaccine that will be happening.
ReplyDeleteNext, you lie about Bigtree being anti-vaxx. He is not, which only shows you are not even informed what you are censoring.
Then you link Joe Rogan's interview with Peter Hotez. Why are you censoring the response I posted to Hotez's interview?
You said, "Del Bigtree has zero medical background or expertise." First, not true, and second, does Rogan have a background?!
Worse, you offered no material response to the following. Stop acting like facebook and Big social.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TieuTQDhFm0&feature=emb_title
I didn't delete your Triablogue post.
DeleteThen whoever did, my criticism applies to them. Let people here both sides of the story.
DeleteRogan doesn't need to have a medical background for the obvious reason that Rogan is interviewing Hotez and I didn't recommend people listen to Rogan but Hotez.
DeleteBigtree interviews people with medical backgrounds as well. Again, funny how those who scream the most about "science"! actually ignore the science and hide behind Big Medical as an excuse to dismiss genuine concerns.
DeleteWe are not suppose to ask questions, evidently.
1. Well I don't have a problem if you want to criticize Joe Rogan.
Delete2. Also, where in this specific coronavirus video from Bigtree does Bigtree interview medical experts? Not to mention Bigtree spends the majority of the video giving his own thoughts rather than the majority of this video being an interview with anyone at all.
3. Listening to both sides. Does that apply to, say, atheists on Triablogue too? We should allow atheists to do posts on Triablogue just to hear both sides?
"3. Listening to both sides. Does that apply to, say, atheists on Triablogue too? We should allow atheists to do posts on Triablogue just to hear both sides?"
DeleteOkay then. To use your logic, I will only be allowed to posted on vaccines on this blog and you are not. Right?
"Okay then. To use your logic, I will only be allowed to posted on vaccines on this blog and you are not. Right?"
DeleteHow does that even logically follow from what I said?
The assumption you're making is that your anti-vaxx stance is the valid stance.
DeleteI understand that Big Social Media will censor truth-seekers—as well as not give you an explanation for their actions. But to censor important matters on health and vaccines is morally reprehensible.
ReplyDeleteI haven't censored you here. But you always act like a victim.
DeleteThat said, I think you should be kicked off Triablogue because of your behavior. Not necessarily your anti-vaccination stance, troubling though it is, but simply your behavior.
DeleteHawk, actually I have thick skin. People who want the other side censored exposes _themselves_ as thin skinned and does not want criticism.
ReplyDeleteHere you are again talking about censorship and having thick skin. Yet I haven't censored anything you've said in my post here.
DeleteIf you want me kicked off from Triablogue for asking for the other side to be represented then that is your own bigoted prerogative. Again you slander me for being "anti-vax," which is not true. People who have deep concerns about vaccines does not make them anti-vax.
ReplyDeleteWell I don't make any final decisions on my own about kicking people off Triablogue.
Deleteto say you're simply someone who has "deep concerns about vaccines" is euphemistic at best. You're very clearly anti-vaccination. Going at least as far back as your post here:
https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/02/are-you-allowing-your-child-to-be.html
Hawk, yes, I have concerns about vaccines that have not been under double-blind placebo studied. Good grief, that is called good science.
ReplyDelete"Hawk, yes, I have concerns about vaccines that have not been under double-blind placebo studied. Good grief, that is called good science."
DeleteHow many times have I answered this objection from you? How many times have others answered this objection from anti-vaxxers? The problem isn't whether or not it's "good science" but why you and other anti-vaxxers don't listen to good science.
"If the coronavirus (COVID-19) turns out to be very contagious or infectious"
ReplyDeleteThirteen million people had influenza in the US in 2019. Sounds like a lot, but that's 3% of the population, and it's without people swimming in Purell and Clorox and staying home as we are now. I know there are some hold outs, but most a lot of states have taken very drastic measures. In Ohio, all sporting events, college classes and public gatherings of any kind (over 100 people) are cancelled.
If, despite all these measures, we end up with even 10-20% of America being infected, then I'd suggest we have something extremely unusual on our hands and that the CDC is lying to us about how this virus is transmitted (or they have no clue).
Oh, please don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that's what's going to happen with the coronavirus. Not at all. My other posts on the coronavirus detail that.
DeleteMy only point here was in response to anti-vaxxers. You could change it to another pandemic disease like the Spanish flu or Ebola or smallpox and my point would be the same.
*pandemic or epidemic
DeleteDel Bigtree is a hero. Two months ago here in New Jersey, the statist Democrats tried to pass a bill for mandatory vaccines for all students that would eliminate the religious exemption and thereby no recourse for parents except to homeschool, which the Dems have targeted as well. To make a long story short, Bigtree came in and rallied the troops. The Dems came up _one_ vote short, despite their cheating and strong-arming tactics. So you should be careful in your criticism of Bigtree. And you should be careful with your ardent, blind devotion to vaccines and Big Medical. It is not all well-and-good as you think it is.
ReplyDelete"Del Bigtree is a hero. Two months ago here in New Jersey, the statist Democrats tried to pass a bill for mandatory vaccines for all students that would eliminate the religious exemption and thereby no recourse for parents except to homeschool, which the Dems have targeted as well. To make a long story short, Bigtree came in and rallied the troops. The Dems came up _one_ vote short, despite their cheating and strong-arming tactics."
Delete1. At the risk of stating the obvious, I can support the medical and scientific efficacy of vaccinations, but be opposed to the gov't trying to mandate vaccinations. Two separate issues.
2. I could say Bigtree did the right thing here, but that hardly means he's a "hero". He obviously had his own anti-vaccination motives in doing this too.
"So you should be careful in your criticism of Bigtree. And you should be careful with your ardent, blind devotion to vaccines and Big Medical. It is not all well-and-good as you think it is."
1. You're arguing in bad faith when you use this kind of emotionally manipulative language. It should be beneath a Christian.
2. Besides, what makes you think you aren't "ardently and blindly devoted" to the anti-vaccination lobby?
Well, this interaction has advanced the discussion. Don't you guys have private email? Perhaps you should squabble there...
ReplyDelete"Well, this interaction has advanced the discussion. Don't you guys have private email? Perhaps you should squabble there..."
DeleteSince people might not be aware, it might be helpful to point out the following:
1. Alan and I have been debating vaccinations for quite some time now. Both in private and public. Yes, that includes email. He first emailed me to solicit my opinion, not the other way around.
2. We've covered most if not all this ground before. Alan repeated things I (and others) have already addressed with him in the past.
3. I never mentioned Alan in my original post. I only addressed Alan when he left a comment. He didn't have to leave a comment. He could have ignored my post altogether.
4. Of course, it was probably obvious to him that I was indirectly referring to him, though I was also referring to others, not only him. Still, I didn't name him (or anyone else I've debated) in this post.
5. In any case, I felt I needed to respond to Alan's post plugging Del Bigtree. (It's the same Bigtree video Alan mentions in this combox.) After Alan had posted a Bigtree video, I posted this post as a subsequent post. I wanted to highlight Peter Hotez because I think Hotez gave a fine answer about anti-vaccination in his interview with Joe Rogan. As I said in my post, I thought Rogan was quite pushy and maybe even aggressive toward Hotez in this video, but Hotez weathered Rogan's remarks well. Of course, Alan calls Hotez a "quack" (above). Probably because Hotez wrote the book Vaccines Did Not Cause Rachel's Autism (Rachel is Hotez's autistic daughter). However, Hotez is actually a well-respected physician and scientist at Baylor University if anyone simply Googles him. Point being, I wanted to bring a pro-vaccination viewpoint to counterbalance Alan's anti-vaccination viewpoint. Alan's post was removed, but not by me.
6. I make no bones about the fact that I believe (generally speaking) vaccination is a good thing from a medical and scientific perspective. I also make no bones that (generally speaking) I would be against the gov't if they tried to mandate vaccination. Of course, I say "generally speaking" in both cases because there could be exceptions that I'm unaware of or can't foresee or things to that effect.
7. Alan has now had his membership revoked from Triablogue. I believe this is the second time Alan has had his membership revoked, after the Triablogue administrators gave him a second chance. However I think Alan is still allowed to comment on Triablogue just like anyone else. His comments are still here; I haven't deleted them.
8. I would not characterize at least what I've said as a "squabble". Squabble makes it sound trivial or insignificant. I think that's unfair. At best you might say it devolved into a squabble, but I still wouldn't say my comments fit that description. Of course I'll leave that up to others to judge.
9. Anyway I regard what I'm trying to do as an important debate. Hence my post. That's for the reasons I gave in my post, viz. the anti-vaccination lobby is very rich, powerful, and influential in the US. They've effectively persuaded many Americans to become anti-vaxxers and many more to become vaccine hesitant. That's a potential public health risk. As I've cited, there have been over 20 measles outbreaks in the last 5 or 6 years, and that's largely attributable to parents who aren't vaccinating their children. I'm no advocate of mandatory vaccinations, hence why I'm trying to persuade through debate and argument, as well as presenting experts like Hotez. And I could mention many others. Anti-vaxxers will dismiss them as being part of the medical "establishment", but the fact is that physicians aren't part of any "establishment", at least no more than physicians who are anti-vaccination (and there are some) are part of the anti-vaccination "establishment".
@C.M. Granger, "pot, meet kettle." :0)
ReplyDeleteStating the obvious, but your comment doesn't advance the discussion either.
Nor does mine. Blog comboxes are funny like that sometimes so you might want to get used to it, or else go read somewhere else, or perhaps even start your own blog where you can personally control the comments section.
But this is Hawk's post and his combox so i.) I'd say he can choose to respond, or not, as he pleases and ii.) speaking only for myself it was helpful to read the back-and-forth to see an example in microcosm of a debate that's raging at large in certain quarters.
Thanks, CD! :) I'm very glad it was helpful to read the back-and-forth! Really appreciate the feedback.
DeleteBy the way, I'm sure you already know this, but just for people in general: Just in case it wasn't clear, I should say I'm not attempting to impose my unilateral perspective on anyone. I don't expect anyone to agree with me. That's why there's debate. That is, I just try to put out the information, debate it, and leave it up to people to decide for themselves. And I never "censored" Alan as he kept claiming. Of course, I do think it's an important issue, and I do think the anti-vaccination lobby has grown very powerful and persuasive, and I do hope to persuade people to my position, but again I think that's best accomplished through reason and debate.
My comment wasn't meant to advance the discussion, obviously.
DeleteFor the record, I'm not anti-vaccination.