How Pro-vaccination Fearmongers Hurt The Case For Vaccinations

in Politics by
   

Politics has its reputation as being extremely polarizing and many everyday Americans avoid it as a result. For some, it’s a simple game of partisan politics. For many, it’s a matter of life and death, with policy proposals and enacted plans affecting their everyday lives. Because of this, many issues are taken seriously and sometimes to a point of extreme intensity.

One of those topics is vaccination. At first glance, many would be caught off guard with this fact. Why is guarding against disease such a controversial topic? Most humans agree better health is a good thing.

The problem runs deeper than this. Many don’t trust corporate interests and the pharmaceutical industry. The theories range from simple points of wanting nothing more than the top dollar to more sinister goals of ruining the human race.

Pro-vaccination supporters are eager to label these individuals “conspiracy theorists” and simply dismiss their concerns as being radical, but do so in a very hostile and demeaning way.

What good does this do?

Pro-vaccination people in a lot of ways have become as arrogant as climate change activists, who believe that the science should not be questioned and government is the answer to every problem. If we don’t have the government enacting policies by force, the world is in trouble.

Of course, this topic is different than other policy points, because it could literally destroy the human race.

This is how the story goes.

There needs to be a discussion between those in support of vaccination and those opposed. If your answer is simply unquestioned government force, the answer is tyranny. If vaccinations are needed for society and science speaks for itself on a number of topics, then do so persuasively with facts and civility.

Fearmongering is a lot of the reason why many tune out anti-vaccination activists and more fringe movements. Alarmism doesn’t help spread a message, it only makes the messenger look ridiculous.

When there’s an outbreak of an illness or concern for such a thing occurring, the various sides of an issue need to come together to have a discussion.

The climate change debate should serve as a warning to those concerned about diseases not being stopped by vaccines. If there is any scientific evidence in support of human-caused global warming, many will not listen because of the aggressive tactics of doomsday activists. “The sky is falling” is not an effective communication strategy.

Why does climate change fail as a movement outside of its own echo chamber? Extremist alarmism.

All signs of the vaccination debate need to have a clear vision of their position and a willingness to address the topic with a level of civility. Nobody listens to a Chicken Little telling us about how the sky is literally falling upon us and the only way to stop it is through swift government force. Don’t subscribe to the Climate Change alarmist method of spreading information.

There are more effective ways to spread your propaganda and get people to listen to the message being communicated.

Chris Dixon is a liberty activist and writer from Maine. In addition to being Managing Editor for the Liberty Conservative, he also writes the Bangor Daily News blog "Undercover Porcupine" and for sports website Cleatgeeks.

  • tz1

    It’s also about the OTHER immunity – Big Pharma can’t be held liable:
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-vaccine-court-is-hazardous-to-your-health/
    If all vaccines are safe and effective, why no jury trial in a real courtroom, only this limited liability kangaroo court?
    The person vaccinated bears all the risk and costs if there is a bad reaction, and this is the second thing the pro-vaxxers won’t discuss. OK, but if my child is injured, are YOU going to pay for the expenses and damage?
    A third problem is the Vaccine schedule – one vaccine a month after a child turns two orally (Salk) or topically (smallpox) is different than 8 intravenous injections with a lot of other junk and aluminum or mercury directly into a newborn’s bloodstream, some of them for STD or other things that might cause at worst discomfort. Chicken pox isn’t fatal.

    So what happens if you even try to discuss this with your pro-vaxxer doctor? They will threaten to call CPS or drop you as a patient. In my case, what is the risk v.s. reward? If Smallpox returns, I’ll be first in line for the bifurcated needle but not an intravenous injection. A traditional Christian family won’t need STD vaccinations. Some rare things (HBV) might be needed if I’m around infectious patients or blood.

    Also, do we immediately require proof of vaccination or inject them immediately if someone is arrested and goes to jail where infectons can easily spread? Or visitors at Hospitals or patients?
    Even the pro-vaxxers aren’t consistent.