1/28/2010

Chirp, chirp: Explaining Mass Delusions; or Why the AoAers will become even more entrenched in their positions

"I think you should let ANB respond for themselves, but I see with the complete butt stomping and absolute obliteration you and your "colleagues" have clearly endured here how you would rush to their assistance, but even with life support, your points lamely fall short. You score an A for effort if that makes you feel any better.


Hey, how much are you and your "colleagues" earning these days? Did you still get a big pharma bonus even with the disappointing uptake of the H1N1 swine flu vaccine despite high predictions and fear mongering???

Here cherry, cherry, cherry.....

Chirp, Chirp."  meinva at the Tribune's OSR#1 post

If meinva can believe that his/her, bensmyson, and ccdaddy57's comments over at the Trib's OSR article constitute evilpossum, ANB, E-manual, and DadofCameron taking a "complete butt stomping and absolute obliteration," then it should be clear that folks who hold tightly to the vaccines/autism theory aren't interested in objective reality. But, to be fair, since meinva thinks the chirp, chirp canard is witty, what can you expect?
 
Self-justification* is a real ass-biter. One single solitary step at a time, folks go down their rabbitholes. That's how they end up there. When you get to wondering how folks can sprinkle industrial mining chelators on their children's breakfast foods, that's how they did it. One little step at a time.
 
Once you're there in the woo-hole so deep you can't see any light, you're gonna begin to think the dimness is the way it's always been, that it was never light, that you never liked the light, and the the light is bad, wrong, and immoral. In other words, you aren't coming out of there any time soon. Hard to be the one up on firm ground, looking down at the folks in the woo-hole and understand how they managed to get themselves in that predicament and why with all evidence pointing to the error of their ways they persist in insisting in the rightness of their choices. Self-justification. One step at a time. Right into the hole, baby.
 
The problem with this is, in a larger sense, that we're all one step away from our own holes and dropping into them One step. At a time, self-justifying all the way down.
 
We make decisions. We take action. Then, looking back on the decisions, we do what we have to in order to make that decision okay. For some that means continuing onwards and downwards further into the woo hole, all while being absolutely certain in the rightness of our course of action and how stupid everyone who disagrees with us is.
 
The folks at AoA won't cut and run from Wakefield, despite today's ruling. After all, they think the paper by Krigsman replicates Wakesfield's study and shows that vaccines caused intestinal issues. It does neither. And it becomes obvious that they don't read the papers.
 
After all, look at this:
 
"If the Lancet case report did not say MMR causes autism, and if his collection of biopsies for research purposes was pre-approved by the Ethical Practices Committee, why is there a case against Dr. Wakefield (and colleagues)?


Medical authorities in the UK (and the United States) do not like it when licensed medical professionals ask questions about vaccine safety. Licensed medical professionals and medical researchers who question vaccine safety are more difficult to dismiss than parents who notice adverse reactions after vaccination.

The prosecution of Dr. Wakefield, Professor Walker-Smith and Professor Murch is an example and warning to other licensed medical professionals and researchers. The warning is clear: if you question the safety of a vaccine, you put your license and career at risk."

 
Yes, that's what this is all about. Wakefield stood up to the man and they took him down. Sure it is. It will be all but impossible for them to admit that Wakefield behaved unethically (and continues to do so with his practice in Austin, where he is not licensed to practice--I know, I'm sure he sees no patients, just as upheld the agreement in the UK not to), that his study did not find what they believe it did (and they back away from that in the FAQ on AoA today), and that there is no body of evidence for their outlandish beliefs. Being wrong is easy. We all do that daily. Admitting you were wrong is the tricky part. It feels like shit. And to admit you were gullible, that you went down your own woo-hole, means you're going to have to deal with feeling like a schmuck. The smart schmucks accept that it is only by admitting when we are wrong, suffering the slings and arrows, that we can get closer to the truth. It comes down to wanting to feel good about yourself at all costs or being willing to suffer some psychic discomfort in order to grow as a person. And an honest person will admit we have a bit of both in each of us.
 
 
*For an excellent and easily digested read on the psychology of self-justification (and how we're all prone to it) read Tavris and Aronson's Mistakes Were Made (but not by me).

No comments: