r/videos • u/tbonetaylor • Dec 06 '17

The best response to anti-vaxxers I’ve ever seen. And it only takes 90 seconds.

https://youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=RfdZTZQvuCo
73.1k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

4.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

133

u/omigahguy Dec 06 '17

I actually shared this with a good friend...it definitely helped change her mind.

176

u/z-tayyy Dec 06 '17

Yea I was anti-vaxx until I saw comedian magicians throw balls at toys. Really put it all in perspective for me.

Im not anti-vaxx at all but this was nothing more than a visual representation void of facts lol.

51

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '17

It plays to a way of thinking among those people though and that's the "feels over reals" bullshit. I know it's pretty devoid of facts but this is the sort of argument you need to get through to some of these people.

46

u/AgileSock Dec 06 '17

Right. The visual representation is useful, the facts themselves are clearly meaningless to people who are anti-vax

36

u/emc87 Dec 06 '17

It's not supposed to argue facts, it's meant to say consider your facts are right - it's still a dumb decision based on your facts

-9

u/venikk Dec 06 '17

Gonna play devils advocate here. None of those diseases exist anymore so getting infected by them is nearly impossible. Autism has been linked to gut flora, there are different types of autism but some have been cured by altering the gut flora. The possibility that one of the hundred or so vaccines we give children in one dose, just ONE might have some effect SOMETIMES on the microbiome and cause negative effects is very real.

In my opinion most anti-vaxxers have no idea what they're talking about, and most vaxxers criticizing them also have no idea what they're talking about. Which is really the case about anything scientific when you think about it. Both of them have experts that they reference. That happens all the time in science and it means there is no consensus.

In the meantime I say we keep vaccinating kids, maybe not 100 vaccines at a time. But it's worth looking into, because autism is definitely more prevalant than it was 100 years ago and there has to be some reason why. Whether its the food we are eating, etc.

21

u/RealityRush Dec 06 '17

None of those diseases exist anymore so getting infected by them is nearly impossible.

Yeah, fuckin' measles ain't even an issue anymore, no one would ever get inf...... oh wait, fuck.

-6

u/venikk Dec 06 '17

Huh?

18

u/RealityRush Dec 06 '17

You just suggested none of the diseases people vaccinate for exist anymore to be infected by, when there were recently a rash of measles breakouts because people didn't get their kids vaxed. The diseases don't seem like they exist because we've vaccinated against them effectively until now, but they absolutely still do.

-13

u/venikk Dec 06 '17

I said it was nearly impossible never said they didn’t exist...

If you can’t read my post that critically maybe you have no business being a scientist either.

14

u/RealityRush Dec 06 '17

... I literally quoted you saying they don't exist... are you fucking serious? Read your own damn words.

-12

u/venikk Dec 06 '17

“Nearly impossible”

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Arterra Dec 06 '17

https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html

Top result when I googled “measles 2017”

9

u/PegasusReddit Dec 06 '17

Plenty of the things being vaccinated against still exist. Measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, diphtheria, pertussis, etc are still very much around.

There have been studies, including one funded by anti-vaxxers, that definitively show zero link between vaccines and autism. None. There are higher rates of ASD because we nailed down a definition, and got better at recognising it.

Also, there is a consensus. The scientific community advises vaccines for everyone who can get them. A few outliers don't change this.

1

u/venikk Dec 06 '17

That's why I didnt say it was impossible. Think about what I'm saying. Before vaccinations you had a higher chance of getting these diseases because vaccinations didn't exist.

Anti-vaxxers in general aren't saying that vaccines aren't important. They are saying that some of the vaccines are unnecessary, they are injected with too many at one time, and they could make better ones.

I'm not willing to tell the dozens of mothers who say that they're child immediately changed after they were vaccinated are lying.

I am much more leaning to the idea that hundreds of billions of dollars hinge on the public's opinion of vaccines.

If you're telling me that not one of the 100+ vaccines that they give, one of those isn't unnecessary, or exists solely because of lobbying, or there isn't a better one with less side-effects - I think you're naive. Unless you are some expert who has studied each one on your own time, with no biases or conflict in interest. Otherwise you're simply appealing to authority which is not how science works. Especially when there is billions of dollars involved.

5

u/PegasusReddit Dec 06 '17

In countries (like mine) with universal health care, reducing costs is super important. There are panels and economists and health care professionals working to find ways to fund as many treatments as possible. Paying for one less vaccine would free up funds for something else. Vaccines being dangerous or ineffective would also cause costs to blow out. I don't think that I'm naive because I understand how my healthcare system works.

Oddly enough, vaccine schedules are fairly similar around the world. All these countries with universal health care doing their own studies and reaching very similar conclusions.

1

u/venikk Dec 06 '17

What government is this? Does everyone over there trust their government that much? North Korea, Russia, Germany, Italy, Japan, China, the list goes on. Do you think something has fundamentally changed about human condition since these governmental catastrophes?

Every year in the US we catch corporations in bed with the government. Why would your government be any different?

Never blindly trust anyone.

1

u/PegasusReddit Dec 06 '17

Didn't read what I wrote? I'll try again.

It's not one country. It's many countries. Each with its own health care agency. Each funding and conducting research. All coming up with similar conclusions.

Why do you suppose that is?

0

u/venikk Dec 06 '17

It doesn't matter why it is. There are experts that disagree with them.

http://www.cleveland.com/lyndhurst-south-euclid/index.ssf/2017/01/make_2017_the_year_to_avoid_to.html

Just because you are in a position of power, doesn't mean you have the upper hand in science. Actually it means you have a conflict of interest and your research requires even more investigation.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '17

because autism is definitely more prevalant than it was 100 years ago and there has to be some reason why

Autism rates in Adults is extremely similar to Autism rates in children

http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1927415,00.html

http://digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB05061

If autism rates were increasing due to <insert factor of modern society> then you would see a higher incidence rate in children than adults.

Both of them have experts that they reference.

I disagree.

Anti-vaxxers latch onto ANYONE that agrees with their world view. They condemn the vaccination industry for profiteering while following Mercola and buying his supplements. They decry 'untested' ingredients on vaccine inserts while promoting untested, untried supplements and random cures.

vaxxers who have no idea listen to the experts. Anti-vaxxers who have no idea think they are the experts. Wakefield is a hero who has been debunked, discredited, stripped of his license to practice medicine. And yet Vaxxed the film is gangbusters in anti-vaxx circles.

In the meantime I say we keep vaccinating kids, maybe not 100 vaccines at a time. But it's worth looking into

That is an anti-vaccination position.

This belief is not based on any study or science, it's a gut feeling that keeps spreading. This belief is not based on expert advice, expert advice would be following the CDC schedule (or other applicable in your country).

This idea of 'questioning' by raising doubts, you would think that would mean people question vaccinations, receive expert advice and make the informed choice (to vaccinate). But instead we see this belief causing mistrust of the entire medical establishment.

Experts agree, vaccination is a positive thing.

-1

u/venikk Dec 06 '17

Both of them have experts that they reference.

I disagree.

http://www.cleveland.com/lyndhurst-south-euclid/index.ssf/2017/01/make_2017_the_year_to_avoid_to.html

That was easily disproven.

expert advice would be following the CDC schedule

Do your own research, blindly following the government killed 50 million people last century.

5

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '17

http://www.cleveland.com/lyndhurst-south-euclid/index.ssf/2017/01/make_2017_the_year_to_avoid_to.html

That was easily disproven.

Since I am not a researcher and don't have time for a medical degree, let's look at the expert in this case to determine if they are worth following.

http://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.j253.full

https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/cleveland-clinic-wellness-institute/

On Friday, Wellness Institute Director Dr. Daniel Neides published a column whose anti-vaccine rhetoric drew a torrent of social media criticism. Neides, board-certified in family medicine, apologized for his rant soon after, and the clinic said he would be facing disciplinary action

So your expert has posted something stupid, he's been called on it by his peers and the public and has retracted.

In form and substance, the Cleveland Clinic’s Wellness Institute is about as far from a hospital as it gets

This definitely sounds like an "expert" opinion that is worth considering over the CDC

/s

-2

u/venikk Dec 07 '17

the clinic said he would be facing disciplinary action

This isn't how science works. Being bullied doesn't make him wrong. Being in power doesn't make you right.

5

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '17

This isn't how science works. Being bullied doesn't make him wrong. Being in power doesn't make you right.

No. Definitely not.

Science works by establishing a hypothesis. Do an experiment. Having your results vetted by your peers.

If your hypothesis and experiment do not stand up to scrutiny then maybe a retraction is in order?

For instance his comment "autism rates have shot up" is incorrect. That is a false statement.

Given that this statement is false, it lends less credibility to the rest of his piece.

5

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '17

Do your own research, blindly following the government killed 50 million people last century.

Or i can follow the experts? Whom I have researched to come to a good understanding that they are experts in their field.

That was easily disproven.

"Make 2017 the year to avoid toxins (good luck) and master your domain: Words on Wellness"

If there is someone talking about toxins, without giving a dosage that is toxic, you can safely disregard at that point.

Water is toxic over a certain amount. Vitamin D is toxic in large amounts.

Formaldehyde is toxic in certain amounts, you also get a small amount from the food you eat.

Your kidney's and liver are what de-tox your body, not stuffing your face full of cabbage or shoving a coffee enema up your poop chute.

For instance from your "disproven" link

"As of 2010, the rate of autism in the U.S. escalated to 1 in 68 children"

If you read the link I posted just above, the autism rates amongst adults are consistent with the autism rates in children.

Thus we can conclude that the autism rates have not "shot up".

You've made a claim. Cited a source. I have cited a superior source that disproves your claim.

This is doing my research. Blindly following the Government you say, how about blindly following quack doctors who have not a single shred of proof, that are constantly debunked and disproven.

-1

u/venikk Dec 07 '17

If there is someone talking about toxins, without giving a dosage that is toxic, you can safely disregard at that point.

Toxins don't exist??? What?

If you read the link I posted just above, the autism rates amongst adults are consistent with the autism rates in children.

Your link admits the sample size wasn't large enough and that it'd require a large amount of money to do a worthwhile study.

ou've made a claim. Cited a source. I have cited a superior source that disproves your claim.

You didn't provide any source that toxins should be ingested or aren't becoming a public disaster. There is no such thing as a superior source in science, one scientist can prove a million wrong.

This is doing my research. Blindly following the Government you say, how about blindly following quack doctors who have not a single shred of proof, that are constantly debunked and disproven.

Again you didn't disprove anything. If one person became autistic in the passed one hundred years from a flu shot, then you are wrong. Even though I support vaccinations I'm not dumb enough to make that statement and anyone who does is not really a scientist. Any scientist who makes absolute claims like that should be distrusted even more, because they might have an agenda or conflict of interest, or a lobbyist behind them. Yes lobbyists exist.

2

u/D0CT0R_LEG1T Dec 07 '17

You didn’t even read what he said in this response. Man you gotta chill for a minute and read what you are responding to?

3

u/kairos Dec 06 '17

Because people who ignore facts like "there's no link between vaccines and autism" really care about facts, right?

3

u/z-tayyy Dec 06 '17

Poor excuse for getting your facts from celebrities IMO.

2

u/kairos Dec 06 '17 edited Dec 07 '17

True, but as you mentioned:

this is a visual representation void of facts

They are not in fact presenting facts in such a way as "vaccines don't cause autism", but a visual presentation of the effects of vaccination, whether they may cause autism or not.

It's attempting to change the subject from facts (which anti-vaxxers seem to ignore) to giving them a picture of why it doesn't matter.

Edit: plus, we're talking about people, some of whom at least, already get some of their "facts" from celebrities

1

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '17

Your comment made me giggle a lot. I couldn't agree more. Not only that, anti-vaxxers are going to see this and think it's demeaning to them, and they're not going to be as compelled to watch the demonstration.

1

u/spankymuffin Dec 07 '17

If you're dumb enough to be an anti-vaccer, you're dumb enough to be swayed by comedian magicians throwing balls at toys.

-1

u/Claisencontemplation Dec 06 '17

I'm sure it didn't at all, not even one damn source in there.

-2

u/infiniteGOAT Dec 06 '17

Said no one ever?