Earlier today I was browsing some of the replies by other Steemians, on my musings. I came across a particularly good reply, that I felt warranted winning a 2 Steem prize in my Great Steem Giveaway.
However one thing I noticed, was that the poster mentioned that '..we don't know how they built the pyramids'.
Which of course we do, I pointed this out, and a quick Google search by the Steemian proved me correct.
I quickly pointed out that he shouldn't feel bad or embarrassed, as that is one of those urban myths that is repeated quite often.
By the way, the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids via a system of pulleys, scaffolding and a hell of a lot of manpower. Whilst also making sure they built the big ones right next to quarries, so as not to have too far to drag the stones.
Chinese Whispers
I've never really thought about why the game Chinese Whispers, is called that. Perhaps it is because the Chinese language is a tonal one, and at the same time very difficult. So it is easy to mispronounce, and therefore change the meaning of a story you've been told.
This is writ large over society, certain things start off as fact, and are slowly changed, however their status as fact, remains the same.
I'm not sure if that's the case with the pyramids, however maybe;
'It's remarkable that an ancient civilisation could have built something so amazing.'
Morphed into
'We have no idea how an ancient civilisation could have built something so amazing.'
The Anecdotal Spy
Anecdotes are a powerful tool, experiencing good storytelling can be an incredibly evocative experience.
Whether it's at the theatre, cinema, or just listening to a friend recite an unusual incident, we all love a good story.
It is this very power they hold over us, that can sometimes cause us to believe things that quite demonstrably, simply aren't true.
Vaccines Cause Autism (Not)
Woah, woah! I can already feel some of you twitching down to the comment section. All set to tell me a really convincing anecdote about how a vaccine did cause autism in a child you know, or know of.
If that is the case, then I can only express my sympathies towards that child. However anecdotal evidence pails into insignificance when measured up against decades of research into the subject.
Another one is 'man made climate change isn't real'.
It is, at least real in the sense that there is an overwhelming statistical likelihood that it is. So agreed by every credible scientific body on earth.
Even to the point where by the collective of geologists working for the petroleum producing companies, agree that there is a very heavy statistical indication that man assisted climate change is real.
Even those guys are admitting it, I mean, come on; surely, you can see that right?
A Matter Of Perspective
Of course, believing we don't know how the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids is not nearly as harmful as believing it's safer not to vaccinate your child, or regulate heavy industrial polluters.
The weird thing is, all three of them are instantly disprovable. In the same way you can Google whether we know how the Egyptians built pyramids, so too can you use the same process to find out the truth about vaccines, and climate change.
However for some reason, as a society, it seems we simply ignore the evidence of lots of anecdotes put together, otherwise called research, over the circumstantial and incomplete evidence of a good, but completely isolated story.
Trust Issues?
Maybe as we get let down time after time by government, and big corporate institutions, and we are moving to the point we don't trust any organisation.
Unfathomably to me, it seems that the only large organisations that seem to garner any kind of mass trust anymore, are the various religions around the world.
Maybe if the Pope, or Ayatollah, or Dalai Lama all said climate change is real and vaccines are safe, everyone would believe them.
I'm wondering if this will lead anywhere, or if it is just a by-product of an inquisitive human mind that is obsessed with finding pattern in everything, and we simply have to live with it?
WHAT DO YOU THINK? WHY ARE CERTAIN THINGS BELIEVED ABOVE OTHERS, DESPITE THE EVIDENCE? NO MATTER YOUR VIEWS IN THE ISSUES I'VE RAISED, PLEASE LET ME KNOW BELOW WHAT YOU THINK.
Most of us have curious minds that find joy in ignoring the obvious and going for the advanced theories. But sometimes it does help the progress of humans who seek for better solutions. Eveeyone likes to speculate about an UFO sighting even when scientific thinking points to a meteorite. As with vaccines, many are made to believe that capitalist countries and corporations are promoting it with a certain agenda. As in the case of many overpopulated south asian countries, many think that the vaccines promoted by the govt has a purpose of hampering the reproductive system so as to control the population.
If you have a strong predisposition to distrust the establishment then no matter how much factual data you are presented with you can justify in your mind that it was manufactured to support the establishment.
Each person has filters they pass all information through. Some filters are more flexible then others based on past experiences and largely based on your childhood. People don't even realize they are hearing words differently then the next person.
Your filter may take something someone says as humorous while someone else might think the person is a jerk. How can that be?
It all goes back to your belief systems, past experiences, how you want others to see you, and a ton of other factors that all build up our filters...very scientifically known as "Head Trash"
Personally I like to think of it as Head Trash over filters because most people can recognize the fact that there is a some crazy stuff put into our heads by teachers, neighbors, friends, parents, the news, and whatever other sources of information gathering we have done in our lives.
Seriously to make kids feel safer about an atomic blast they said to hide under your desk and put you hands over the back of your head. Sure that will save you!
You can see why someone might start to distrust the establishment...right? They lied to us as kids, why would they start telling the truth now?
This is just a simplified example, but seriously if you have ever done any public speaking and then ask for reviews you would be shocked at what comes back. It's honestly like some people didn't hear a word you said...and they probably didn't because their Head Trash was talking so loud they couldn't hear you.
Re: Climate Change
It’s a funny thing about climate change. In the mid 70’s they warned us about global cooling, and that a new ice age was approaching. A short time after that, the topic quietly morphed into global warming and stayed there for a while, until it reached a fever pitch.
In the past decade Climate gate burst into the news cycle because of a hacker who exfiltrated documents from a server at the Climatic Research Unit. Among these documents were those that indicated that the decline in warming should be hidden. Apparently, they managed to generate a special chart in order to mask that very inconvenient fact, because getting defunded really stinks, and in order to prevent that, you’ve really just got to tow the line.
By now the new hip term for global warming is ‘climate change’. What perturbs me about that phraseology is that the two words in and of themselves, they’re indisputable. I mean, I don’t think there’s a person in the world who believes that the weather is unchanging. After all, we see the weather change every day, so in that sense it’s very true.
Yet the people who wield the words climate+ change, they’re talking of anthropogenic (or manmade) climate change. Surely, human activity is almost certain to influence the temperature in our environment to some extent. Yet, have any of us considered the potential that they might be exaggerating our effect on the weather?
For example, it’s popular theory that the dinosaurs became extinct because of an ice age. Did that Ice age happen because the dinosaurs didn’t expel enough carbon emissions in order to prevent it? Or was it related to sun cycles, or the position of the sun in relation to the earth, or a combination of the two?
You see, what the interested financial powers that be would have you believe is that they are to be the saviors of mankind. The priest class of the climate change believers, they wish to become the issuers of carbon indulgences, on the pretense that they are powerful enough through their great wisdom to save the world from an almost certain impending doom.
Big question is, if we assume that they are correct in all of their assessments. Then, mathematically speaking, if we grind industry to a halt and stop carbon emissions, will it solve the problem? Or will it merely enrich a few in the short term, and cause a massive inflation of prices that will ultimately prevent the poor from access to jobs, or affordable goods and services. The large corporations when taxed on their emissions will immediately pass those cost down to the consumer.
So, if this thing is a money making scheme, we had better be sure we’re right about the numbers. I mean we haven’t even figured out cancer yet, but we can control the weather? I seriously doubt we collectively have as much control as they pretend we do. Also I think if we try to accomplish what they want to do; it’s going to do far more harm than it will good.
The weather has naturally changed radically throughout the ages. It might simply be beyond our control. What if, with all of our efforts, we can only influence it a degree or two? Wouldn’t that have been a colossal waste of money? The people, who see this issue even better than I do, know that it will result in mass starvation, and lives lost. If we we’re to let them run roughshod over us.
OK, I was about to answer those points, however please indulge me and watch David Mitchell talk about the subject for 2:52 seconds.
Because even if all you say is true, his point, which is kind of mine, still rings true.
Cg
I agree that many times it's correct to err on the side of caution as the man in the video suggests. However, what I would propose is that a series of questions be considered. For example I would like to see the science folks answer the following questions.
1.) How much carbon do we intend to reduce over the next 100 years?
2.) How many degrees of warming will this prevent?
3.) Will it be worth it, to cripple industry for all of those years in order to prevent ?° of global warming?
If I remember correctly, it may have been Lord Monckton of Brenchley who posed a similar thought experiment. He prefaced it with, let’s assume they are right for sake of argument. I can't find the exact clip, but he's an interesting guy to listen to with respects to the great climate debate. His logic seems sound to me, if you're interested in one of the more rational voices from the other side of the argument.
Especially when one of those times we are talking about saving the only planet we have to live on.
If you merge your first and second questions together, while slightly changing them, you have a much more pertinent one which I believe has been asked.
If all the plans fit into place, how much carbon is it possible to reduce, and what effect will that have on the environment?
This question has been answered . . .
It's like Mitchell says, when the American Association of Geologists for Petroleum finally agree with everyone else (as in every credible scientist on the planet) about climate change, that's when you've got to sit up and take notice.
Remember petroleum companies stand to lose out when it comes to green taxes, however even they are run by human beings, who enjoy living on planet earth and realise that they can play a part in helping our continued living on the planet.
I will checkout Monckton, I'll see if I can find that video on youtube and come back to you if I can.
Cheers
Cg
Oh and to answer your 3rd question
Yes, because as far as I'm aware you can't spend money when you're dead.
PS, it is not called global warming anymore, it is climate change, whilst that might seem a matter of semantics, it is more accurate. Not everywhere will get hotter because of climate change.
For instance if we turn off the gulf stream through our actions, parts of the globe in the south will freeze.
Cg
Do you think with the rebranding from global warming to climate change that it will alter the way in which they address the problem? E.g. to address global warming they wanted to encourage companies to reduce their carbon emissions, and this would be enforced by a tax if the companies did not do it.
The tax would be a unreasonably hefty spank you very much kind of tax. So the price of business for the company would then be to purchase carbon credits so they could emit more carbon, than what they are allotted.
What I see in this plan is the same scam that banks carried out when they issued paper certificates (or notes) in exchange for gold and silver deposits. They quickly learned that they could print more certificates than they had holdings, and became very rich.
So much so in America that they had to eventually de-anchor the currency from its' physical counterpart, or the hard asset. Transforming it from money that was backed by physical value to a fiat currency.
In essence I predict that the same would happen with the carbon credits, there would be nothing to prevent them from over issuing them when they'll be selling them for money. I believe they are trying to get in on the ground floor of the next great scam.
I think it's safe to say that the biggest scam in America and maybe the world is the Federal Reserve, and it's worthless notes (or dying petrol dollar). As that system slowly dies on the vine, people desperately want to be in charge of what takes it's place.
With Trump in office, I think it's really derailing their agenda here in America. He's not quite down with what I perceive to be the con. I'm sure you are probably studied on this issue. However, just in case you are not, here is a cartoon short about it.
It's a highly entertaining, and very very informative piece entitled 'The American Dream'. It's bound to inspire future musings if you've never come across it before.
For me it really helps me to understand that parallels of what will probably happen if they implement the carbon credit hustle. It would be just like the banking scam, but only reworked a bit. The carbon credits would be a new commodity that they could conjure up unlimited amounts of, and their value would be backed by the fear if we don't adopt it, we're all gonna die.
I imagine like during the days of ancient Egypt, maybe you'd have a member of the priest class who the villagers would turn to for mystical advice. This man is a learned man who has studied the occult very deeply, more specifically astronomy.
He knows today is the day that the moon will blot out the sun for a period of time, resulting in darkness. So he makes ominous predictions about the god's being angry and what must be done to appease them.
Then when the time is right, he vehemently barks at his people to bring their items of value to the temple in order to appease Horus to return again, and bring fourth his light so that they may have a fruitful harvest.
Nobody would dare to ask him why the Sun god needs all their gold, they'd simply oblige out of superstition, and when the sun returned to it's normal state, they'd thank him profusely, and worship him with even more devotion.
Nice photo
I thought it was good, because a shaggy dog tale is often a term used for a story that isn't true :-)
Cg
Really interesting thoughts. It's a complicated topic, because humans tend to oversimplify the world in order to make decisions.
Do you spend hours researching facts or do you trust your teacher, or a textbook, or a doctor, or a web site? Imagine how your life would be if you tried to independently verify everything you saw or heard?
Can you trust your google research that says Egyptians built pyramids near quarries, even though geological evidence shows rare evidence of quarries and tests show that the the majority of stones in most pyramids come from no where near the surrounding areas (stones came from a mix of sometimes far-flung places)? And many historians and archeologists now largely agree, based on scientific evidence, that the Egyptians used a fairly sophisticated network of canals and sledges, probably along with a technique of lubricating the sand under the sleds, to haul stones from at least several miles away? With one team going to far as to postulate, based on their research, that at least for the Giza complex, they leveraged the seasonal rising and falling of the Nile to let the water surges slowly float their stones to the construction site, then work on the pyramids when the waters receded?
Nobody "knows" anything, but at some point, you have to trust something. You trust your eyes, but a magician can deceive you. You trust science, but scientists have been wrong for millenia. In fact, they're still plenty wrong -- even good, well-established scientists published in peer-reviewed journals. I work for a scientific research agency, and we found that 90 percent of our research projects have never been replicated, and of the project that were replicated, 40% failed. 40 percent!
Yet we believe. Is it because the scientists and magicians tell us a good story? Probably. And that's how we're wired. Stories help us understand the world, simplify our decisions, and act confidently. If not for stories, we couldn't make sense of the world. Some of our stories are fiction, some are nonfiction. It's on all of us to help each other identify which is which.
Here's an article that you might appreciate. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/supersurvivors/201705/why-do-people-believe-things-aren-t-true. There's lots of scientific research backing him up. Just check google, reddit, and quora.
Though, it's possible the research is wrong. Nobody knows, do they? You just have to trust...
A CDC whistleblower, Dr. Thompson, came forward in 2016 with the admission that the data in a 2004 study showing no link between the MMR vaccine and autism was tweaked by removing children without a birth certificate in order to hide the >300% increase in autism among black males who received the vaccine under the age of 3. There was no other evidence of a link but, if I had a black son I would delay the vaccine until after age 3. Not a slam-dunk, but it's not correct to say that there is NO link.
I'm afraid not a slam dunk at all, if I were to give you a link back it would be this one https://respectfulinsolence.com/2014/08/28/a-bad-day-for-antivaccinationists-a-retraction-and-the-cdc-whistleblower-issues-a-statement/
However, that is a lot of data right there, let me sum up by saying that this man is a fantasist, and absolutely zero evidence has been brought forward to support his claims, however his lies have fulled the conspiracy theories.
Next, Andrew Wakefield was bankrolled by a rival drug company making an MMR substitute; his original data was taken from a poll with 12 sets of parents, 8 of whom said that they thought that maybe their children had developed autism after vaccination.
These people have been utterly discredited, however most people operate on the 'no smoke without fire' premise, so there must be something in it.
Like I said above, there have been multi-decade long studies, and meta analyses, comparisons, retesting and so on, done by dozens and dozens of different organisations, universities, health organisations, governments, and so on. Not one single link has ever been found.
That for me is overwhelming evidence, and it would take pretty extraordinary evidence to prove otherwise.
Great comment by the way, good to see the debate is alive and kicking! :-)
Cg
@kunschj if anyone's interested in the CDC Autism/MMR Files that Dr. Thompson released, they can be downloaded here.
Tripedia dTaP Insert Page 11 of 13
Queue the disclaimer!
@kunschj if anyone's interested in reading about the 20 year multi-country, millions of person studies that show there is absolutely no link whatsoever you can view them here https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/48/4/456/284219
If anyone is interested in finding out how that CDC report is false and has been redacted by its authors you can read that here
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452
Or of course we could all just ignore the overwhelming evidence and concentrate on a story that satisfies the urge within us to listen to, and enjoy a good story.
Cg
For some reason we live in a world where some people will accept words as truth from actors (ie/ Gwyneth Paltrow says vaccines cause autism), but don't believe science. I'm not sure when it happened, but scientific facts to some are like opinions and they get to choose whether or not they believe them. Has society in general been "dumbed down"? Have our needs become so instantaneously met (drive-thru's for everything, google) that people don't know how to think for themselves anymore? where they don't have to "work" for answers? When did Wiki become the go-to for legitimate information? I grew up believing science was science, facts were facts, and opinions were opinions. It wasn't all interchangeable.
Wow! I'm not helping you solve this am I ? :)
Yes and yes, critical thinking is dying and it is killing me . . .
Cg
Glad I could help you get some inspiration :)
gonna read later and see if I have something smart enough to be written :)
This dog is also known as prettiest dog in the world :D @cryptogee
I think there are different reasons for the various issues you are raising here. I think partly the issue with the pyramid is that people like ancient mysteries, and it's fun to think that they were built in some unknown way. Many people also grew up being taught that it was not certain how they were built, which is then hyperbolized to "we have no idea how they built them". Furthermore, people cannot all keep up with more recent thinking about these things, so those ideas get stuck, and then develop into sort of a persistent urban legend.
Vaccine reactions and climate change I think have other issues behind them. Some may overlap. Tribalism may be an issue with climate change. Due to clever marketing, it is an issue that has now been packaged in the general conservative platform, which makes it easy for low-information voters to decide their stance on the issue. Pair that with readily available sources constantly questioning the validity of climate change and people selecting information which reinforces their already held opinions, and it gets difficult to correct that viewpoint. Anti-vaxxers are another issue as well. Modern medicine and society has allowed us to be so healthy that people can no longer tell the reason they are healthy is mostly from vaccinations of the population, sanitation, water quality, etc. Its easy for them to attribute health to "living naturally" and they have a suspicion of corporations. The one (later retracted) study drawing a link between vaccines and autism was the only seed needed for the persistent viewpoint to hold, and efforts to discredit it are viewed as the corporate line.
Regardless, its one of the costs of living in a society which does not value education, and actively tries to distill complex information down to talking points, as well as having a binary political system.
I think here you have hit the nail on the head, because lets face it, there is no antivax movement in countries where people die from curable diseases.
Yes, plus people's lack of ability when it comes to questioning the validity of those sources!
Good comments, thanks.
Cg
You gave excellent examples with pyramids, vaccines, and large corporations. However, I would say that the largest beleif despite the evidence is (I don't wish to hurt someones feelings but:) religion.
BTW, "Chinese Whispers" is called "Gluvi Telefoni (ENG: Deaf Telephones)" in Serbia. : )
Yes that one baffles me, zero evidence, in fact overwhelming evidence to the contrary, yet people still believe. I know that all religion uses childhood indoctrination, however surely when you grow up you realise, oh, that was all complete bullshit, but alas no.
I long for the day when the entire human race is capable of critical thinking.
Cg
We should always do our own research, not just believe everything we read or heard.
Cheers @cryptogee
I think people like to create false narratives when they don't have the knowledge or the ability to believe or explain something. I was reading a post about creationism and evolution the other day and I think that is a fine example. I am not of the opinion that the two things need to be mutually exclusive. Things evolve, there is scientific proof of it. However if you are raised to believe that one is true and the other is bad, it is hard to shake what is ingrained in you. To say, I know this to be true, but it goes against everything I have been raised to believe can create an extreme internal conflict. In some cases depending on the topic it can also alienate you from those you love or care about. It can disconnect you from your support system. Finally sometimes it can be pride and the fear of looking foolish. You can stubbornly hold onto something simply because you don't want to hear "I told you so".
Re: Vaccines
There is a dangerous meme in the United States perpetrated either by the FDA, or the CDC, that vaccines are safe and effective©, and although this is a true statement, it's only true in the legalese sense of the words.
For example, a child might get vaccinated by one of these safe and effective © vaccines and develop “autism like” symptoms. The parents could seek out a financial remedy through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. They may even be well compensated because the vaccine damaged their child.
However, this entire scheme was designed to create an illusion that it is a legal remedy, when in fact no fault is being admitted. It effectively keeps the victims silenced with a payoff, and the pharmaceutical company’s reputations safe. So in this case, was the vaccine ‘safe and effective’? It depends on who you ask the parents of the victim, or the pharmaceutical company.
Side note: It’s been said that Mercury is the second most-toxic substance known to man. Back in the day hatters that worked liberally with the poison went mad from the brain damage it caused. That’s where that familiar phrase; “mad as a hatter” came from.
Weeks from her due date a pregnant woman might be cautioned against consuming seafood because of the mercury in the fish. Yet when baby is born, doctors immediately want to inject the child with a vaccine that has a mercury based preservative included in it.
Makes sense, right?
I get your point that vaccines become a reliable financial instrument to pharmaceutical corporations. This certainly is an issue if they do not guarantee its safety and effectiveness. It is completely understandable that we must hold them accountable for their products both in federal and corporate sense.
What I have a problem with is the mass hysteria about ALL vaccines cause autism and NO vaccines should be administered to children. Documents and data can be fabricated, that's a fine argument. However, the statistics still stand that because of advance in medicines, especially in vaccination, the survival rate of infants increase. There is no good cure in medicines, what we have are tradeoffs. You choose the lesser poison with a greater benefits, and narrow down the composition until the probability of fatal/critical side effects went to near zero. It is always a double edge in medicine. It's a fallacy to ask this but I'm going for it anyway: Between death and autism, which one would you rather take your chance with?
Also, if you decide not to vaccinate your children, that's fine because it's your decision. But keep your children away from childcare center because vaccination is also meant to prevent diseases from spreading. There are parents who have children that are not old enough for vaccination. It would be unfair for these kids to catch preventable diseases from your older children because they weren't vaccinate.
Side note: Anecdotal evidence holds no weight when it comes to making a life and death decision. Precision and accuracy of a scientific method does. Mercury might be the second most toxic substance known to man but there are still people who take it without having problem. Hell, there are people who consume a reasonable amount of fish with mercury and are still in good health. The point is the dosage. What are we talking about here, a fatal dose of mercury to an infant that will intentionally damage the child for the rest of his life or a bare-minimum to preserve the vaccine from bacteria?
Also, according to CDC, since I'm not too big into conspiracy, they state that
"Measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccines do not and never did contain thimerosal. Varicella (chickenpox), inactivated polio (IPV), and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines have also never contained thimerosal.
Influenza (flu) vaccines are currently available in both thimerosal-containing (for multi-dose vaccine vials) and thimerosal-free versions."
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/index.html
So yea, the mercury in childhood vaccines is a moot point.
I think your question presumes that if the person doesn't get the vaccine, he or she will die. Before the big vaccine push, measles wasn't as serious as they make it out to be today.
A whistle-blower came out not to long ago and exposed some interesting statistics about the MMR vaccine. These statistics were covered up, and then later reproduced. The man responsible for covering them up came out as he felt immensely guilty about it.
In 1968 a measles vaccine was developed by Maurice Hilleman and his colleagues. This is the same Maurice Hilleman who admitted on audio tape that they introduced a monkey kidney cancer virus called SV40 into the polio vaccines. It was injected into 30 million people.
I don't know if it's the mercury that is causing the autism or what exactly is. It could simply be an autoimmune disease triggered by one of the vaccine ingredients. For example they used to, and still might in some cases use peanut oil in vaccines as an adjutant. Sometimes this would result in the person developing a deadly peanut allergy. So questions I wonder about is, how many cancer cases are attributed to vaccines? Or what about the polio vaccines, that actually have given people polio? This kind of stuff happens all of the time.
For starters I think a cost benefit analysis is in order, risk/vs/reward. Do we really need to be vaccinating people against the chicken pox, and the flu? I mean the flu vaccine rarely ever covers the predominate strain. With each dose, unless you ask otherwise your getting dosed with mercury. It can't be good for you. It destroys cells on contact. It's a heavy metal, I mean one would have to chelate to remove it from the body.
P.S. Iatrogenesis (or death by doctor) is the third leading cause of death in the U.S.
It's hard to understand how someone might feel if they won this horrible lottery of vaccine injury. So please look at this video, and put yourself in this guys shoes if not only to see the place of pain where these parents are coming from.
You do realise that the Polio vaccine is responsible for wiping out the disease on earth? Or at least it would have been had religious superstition not got in the way, when a Nigerian Iman started talking of plots and blah, blah, blah. Guess what? Polio's back! Yay for superstition and unsupported evidence!
The reason you don't know is;
a) You're not a doctor
b) You have not taken any education in the area and have not studied specifically in the area of vaccines.
c) You choose to ignore the advice and studies of people who are doctors and have studied in this area.
d) Vaccines don't cause autism.
The reason why I won't watch the video, is because it's an anecdote, a very sad anecdote, however it is a tale of ONE person. Research are lots of anecdotes put together, that's the kind of info that I take notice of.
You say that death by doctor is a leading cause of death in America? Well so is heart disease and cancer, but that doesn't mean that vaccines cause autism, they are entirely unconnected facts.
Cg
Mutant Strains Of Polio Vaccine Now Cause More Paralysis Than Wild Polio
I realize that the Polio vaccine is causing many people in third world countries to develop "Polio-like" symptoms. If they want to try and pretend that Polio has been vanquished by using carefully crafted words such as "Polio-like", well that's certainly their prerogative.
Yes to a), b), and c). No to d)
I can't, not-know the cause of something, based on a statement that you hold to be true. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Or rather, just because I am not aware of evidence that a vaccine causes autism, doesn't necessarily mean that said evidence doesn't exist.
The very fact that you are aware of the phenomenon of vaccine injury, and "autism-like" symptoms really makes me wonder how forthright your being with yourself about the issue. It's clear to me that they are using "autism-like" so that they can maintain the claim that vaccines don't cause autism.
Ask yourself this, when they use the term vaccine. How can we even be certain that they are talking about the entire shot. They may only be addressing the inactive virus, and if that's the case it's simply another shenanigan employed in order to limit their liability.
One can be headed north, yet truly in their heart believe they are headed south. With science, we give up what is proven false and adjust our next hypothesis as well as our world view.
I don't believe that any authority on earth could convince everybody that climate change is not real, because the people who don't believe in it don't simply draw their beliefs from the authority of others. If they did, they'd be willing to listen to climate scientists. I read a great article recently about why conspiracy theories are so persistent and the people who believe them can be so fanatical about them.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/talking-apes/201801/why-do-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories
Researcher found three main reasons for people holding onto false beliefs even when confronted with the truth
A desire for understanding and certainty: When confronted with proof that a belief is false, particualrly if that belief is fairly trivial, most people would simply change what they believe to be true. Both those who believe conspiracy theories often have a vested interest in maintaining them, through taking the time to understand their arguments. Being confronted with contradictory evidence is thus an unpleasant experience that challenges their feeling of certainty and threatens to render their invested time useless.
A desire for control and security: Feeling as though you understand the truth, contrary to what others want you to believe, is a powerful emotional state, and one that its hard to shake off.
A desire to maintain a positive self image: Socially marginalized people are more likely to hold conspiracy theories to be true. The ease with which two people who hold the same beliefs can connect is greater than the ease with which those with opposite beliefs can. Believing in a particular theory can give an individual a place within a community.
If its psychologically uncomfortable to change what you fundamentally believe, most people will simply hold onto their own version of the truth.
Very good article, and excellent points. Unfortunately, when some of us are faced with these truths; rather than saying 'Oh snap! I've been fooled by others and myself, oh well, I'll be more careful to scrutinise facts in the future'
They think something along the lines of 'Well that isn't relevant to me, I know, what I know...'
Cg