When skeptics accept their self-portrayal and don't look behind the facade, they win. They can pass themselves off as the "vaccine concerned," even though no amount of persuasion, evidence, or empathy will ever convince them that vaccines are not a toxic eugenics plan. 6/
-
Show this thread
-
The key is to learn to be able to tell the difference between antivaxxers and those who are "vaccine concerned" or "vaccine averse" but still reachable. Don't bother with the former other than to show why and how what they're saying is disinformation and pseudoscience. 7/
2 replies 7 retweets 52 likesShow this thread -
The idea is to marginalize them, to—if you'll excuse the term—inoculate those susceptible to their message against their disinformation techniques, conspiracy theories, and pseudoscience. Refusing to call them what they are, antivaxxers, hinders that inoculation effort. 8/
1 reply 8 retweets 51 likesShow this thread -
Meanwhile, treat the vaccine averse and concerned with respect and empathy as you try to reach them. Understand that they just want what is best for their children (and them) but have been misled. 9/
1 reply 6 retweets 53 likesShow this thread -
Now, I will admit that it isn't always easy to tell a true antivaxxer from the stronger vaccine averse. It's a continuum. There is no hard and fast border between the two. There are some techniques that I've found useful, though. 10/
1 reply 5 retweets 47 likesShow this thread -
First, when someone says negative things about vaccines, ask them if there are any individual vaccines that they consider safe and effective and would recommend in general. If they say no or dance around the question, they're almost certainly antivaccine. 11/
2 replies 7 retweets 52 likesShow this thread -
Another good question: Ask them to list specific pieces of evidence that it would take to convince them that vaccines are safe and effective. You can ask this question for vaccines in general or for an individual vaccine, such as MMR or
#CovidVaccine. 12/1 reply 5 retweets 45 likesShow this thread -
If they propose an impossible standard of evidence (e.g., massive RCT evidence that a vaccine is 100% safe and 100% effective PLUS massive epidemiological studies of millions of people with zero adverse reactions), they're very likely antivax. 13/
1 reply 6 retweets 44 likesShow this thread -
If they insist on a massive randomized placebo-controlled trial over 20 years showing that vaccines do not cause autism and react negatively if it's pointed out that such a study would be highly unethical, they're antivax. 14/
1 reply 4 retweets 44 likesShow this thread -
However, here's perhaps the most useful standard in terms of responses to the question about evidence. If they keep moving the goalposts as you provide evidence that meets each set of standards they answer you with, they are almost certainly antivax. 13/
2 replies 5 retweets 48 likesShow this thread
Again, there's very little point trying to engage with real antivaxxers. The cost in terms of time and effort far outweighs the benefit of the tiny likelihood that you might get them to start to change their minds. 14/
-
-
Instead, target the fence-sitters, the "vaccine curious" and averse who might be reachable. To do that, however, you need to know how to distinguish them from antivaxxers. It takes time to develop an accurate "I know one when I see one" instinct about antivaxxers, as I have.15/15
2 replies 4 retweets 50 likesShow this thread -
I forgot: One other VERY good indicator of an antivaxxer: The grift. If the person sells "substitutes" for vaccines, woo to treat "vaccine injury," or "alternative vaccine schedules," he is almost always an antivaxxer. 15a/15
7 replies 6 retweets 80 likesShow this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.