I had intended that today’s Friday Filosophy would be a further exploration of the theme I began a few weeks back: that of understanding one’s choices (rather than philosophy in fact determining one’s actions). However, Age of Autism have derailed that, by illustrating absolutely perfectly how one should not approach a debate. (Its now been taken down; an apology to all portrayed so offensively would be nice as well.) Having seen their post before its removal, and read the comments of their members, I thought it would be worth contrasting their approach with that of those on the rational side of the debate (while I recognise that there is certainly some unpleasantness on our side of the fence too, I’ve not seen anything approaching the same level).

By the way, that’s why this is Friday ‘Filosophy,’ not ‘Philosophy’: it allows me more latitude, as long as some discussion of thinking is involved.

First off I should mention that this post is not going to focus on the vaccine/autism manufacturoversy itself, as it’s been settled firmly for anyone who will allow themselves to look rationally at the issue.

I will also credit some of the thinking in this post to Daniel Loxton who has today been making some excellent points on Twitter about the ways in which skeptics and scientists should not talk about pseudo-and un-scientific beliefs and attacks. See here here here here for a few samples – making a very important distinction between beliefs being “wrong”, and “stupid”.

The point I want to make though, is embodied by the AoA ‘Thanksgiving Nightmare’: a photoshopped picture of various prominent doctors, scientists, and rational pro-vaccine journalists sitting down to a Thanksgiving dinner of baby (yes, you read that correctly, as seen in the picture above) – complete with delightfully offensive and misogynistic comments left by AoA members. This is incredibly offensive, not to say hurtful to those so attacked, and does precisely nothing to advance debate (leaving aside the fact that in this case the debate is not necessary).

Widening the frame, the accusations often made are that we doctors know that vaccines are ‘the cause’ of autism – or that various CAM ‘treatment’ modalities really do work – but we suppress this knowledge for our own evil twisted ends. More than that, the belief is (bafflingly frequently) expressed that we go as far as intentionally causing harm to children (with vaccines) or cancer patients (with chemotherapy) or to patients with psychiatric illness (with, well, you name it: medication, compulsory treatment, ECT…) so that we can profit from their misery.

Read that again, and consider the degree of evil we’re being accused of. With apologies to the late Darcy Clay:

I trained a lot, and I worked a lot, and Jesus I was evil
I spent lots of nights, saving lots of lives, and Jesus I was evil

I listened to evidence, of the kind that is science, and Jesus I was evil
I refused to use, a ‘cure’ without proof, and Jesus I was evil

So why would we do these evil things? Apparently because we’re all ‘in league with Big Pharma’. The implication of that (and it’s not always left as implied) is that we make huge amounts of money from the misery and suffering of our fellow human beings … You know: the human beings we went to medical school – spending well over a decade in training (if you add specialty training – and general practice/family medicine is a specialty, as far as that goes), which included many years working unconscionable hours in highly stressed and under-resourced conditions – so that we could help. Those fellow human beings. Yeah, we’re just all about making them sick so we can make money with Big Pharma. That’s what drives us. Yeah.

… Damn, that actually emptied my sarcasm gland. There’s none left. Probably for the best, as I want to talk about better ways of interacting and debating.

Oh wait, I found a last spurt: if we’re all in league with Big Pharma where’s my frakkin’ yacht?

Ahhhh I’m done ….

Anyway, that is the overarching motivation ascribed to us, and the accompanying dehumanisation and demonisation  make it possible for organisations like Age of Autism to engage in vile tactics such as the now vanished post that spurred this.

AoA comment quoted by Orac

That colours every interaction. There is unpleasantness and a complete refusal to listen (for example, though I personally cannot bear to see or hear the woman, it should be easy enough to find videos floating around of Jenny McCarthy shouting down “opponents” with cries of “bullshit!”). After all, why would anyone listen to someone so evil they would give children serious disorders in order to make money?

By contrast – and despite high levels of distress and frustration, the sentiment I generally see expressed by doctors and scientists about the bulk of people caught up in ‘antivaxxing’ or CAM or whatever, is that they are caring but misguided. I’ve even seen that written about Jenny McCarthy – I’m sure even by Orac. Believe it or don’t.  When refuting CAM or bad/pseudo-science, it’s not because we don’t like the claims, it’s really truly simply because they have been demonstrated to be wrong. Honestly, if there really was a simple panacea, we would grab it with both hands, and fête the discoverer with great fête-ness. But no matter how nice something would be, if the science says no, then the science says no.

Of course there are many reasons why people (with all our built-in logical fallacies) find that hard to accept, but that’s not what I wanted to write about. The point (if I can find one ) is simply about the way to approach this. Daniel makes it very clear why those of us in the rational camp must not give in to our frustration at people not understanding what we say (after all, what we say is often complicated, uncertain, and contrary to their anecdotal experience – further validated as it is by the clustering one finds on the internet). We must not head any distance down the road AoA just thundered along (and it seems has taken the nearest exit from). If you call someone stupid – or even imply it – why would they listen to anything more you say? If we are unpleasant in our interactions, it detracts from, rather than enhances our arguments. If the science is strong it should stand up without insults – and if it’s not, then the debate needs to happen.

And just once more I’d like to mention the fact that doctors are actually a caring and dedicated group. Yes there are some that aren’t paragons of virtue, and I’m sure some who get into medicine because of a perceived comfortable lifestyle, but I’m just as sure (yes: anecdotal experience and faith, I know …) that’s a small minority. Most of us actually care about people. We do the best we can for people. This unfortunately is why some of us are susceptible to falling into pseudoscience: we want so badly to help, that when there isn’t a science-based treatment, something else that promises wonderful results can seem very appealing. But please, don’t vilify those of us who resist that siren call. We will do what we can, but we will be honest when we can’t do more. And that doesn’t mean we don’t care, it just means we’re limited. It doesn’t invalidate scientific medicine, it’s just an acknowledgement that we don’t know everything.

- And it’s no more a reason to be offensive and abusive towards us, than others’ beliefs in pseudoscience/bad science is a reason for us to be insulting back.

<group hug>