Hi, Dylan.
I've also noticed that vaccine debate has, "gone viral" on Facebook.
I've watched people get ugly and stop thinking, and certainly stop listening.
I've also learned a few things, and seen one or two upstanding individuals actually practice the art of skepticism, attempting to put aside their biases and allow their knowledge structures to change based on new information. But this is by far not the standard reaction, which is one of hate and emotion and a fortification of ignorance.
I've come away with a few casual observations...
1. The worst offenders on the Pro-Vaxx side invariable begin their participation in the debate (in each of the several cases I saw), with the announcement that, "There is NO question. It's a completely closed case. Vaccination works and is safe." (Or some variation on that theme.) That's their starting position and everything they do after that is not an attempt to assess or to explore, but to fortify and to win.
2. The worst of the Pro-Vaxx people display an amazing level of cognitive dissonance and denial. Well constructed, polite comments and samples of evidence are utterly disregarded. Where weaker arguments and less-than-watertight examples are challenged and spun, the strong examples are simply ignored and quickly forgotten. -To the extent that questions and talking points thoroughly addressed are asked again as though they had not been answered.
3. "Show me legitimate proof! Not that conspiracy stuff!"
This one is interesting. It struck me that when an extreme pro-vaxx person demands "legitimate" proof, when you boil it down, what they are really asking for is proof which has been given the stamp of approval by Official Culture. -Approval which can be granted only by a trusted authority figure or body with a sufficiently high standing in Official Culture, such as respected news anchors with CDC press releases. The problem, of course, is that questioning virology is not approved of by Official Culture, and thus exists outside the Venn diagram circle of acceptability; anything which disagrees with the official position is by default, "conspiracy stuff". -Even officials from within official culture are, as we have seen, tossed into the "conspiracy circle" the moment they raise alarms or go "off message". One wonders just how much momentum an official announcement would have to attain before being accepted if it goes against popular belief?
4. Knowing a lot of the people in person who I have on my own Facebook account, I have had the opportunity to know what they are like in their real lives, know their histories, etc.: They are not all the same. Some of the extreme pro-vaxx people have been those who tended to have a lot of difficulty in general coping with change and with accepting upsetting ideas. They are deeply affected by scary ideas, and avoid research as a general rule.
Others have been researchers and powerful thinkers in the past, but strangely flipped on this issue, turning off their previously strong rational tool kits, adopting uncharacteristic levels of denial and dogmatism, including that strange ability to simply not see or remember conflicting data or refutations, and refusing to read or even look at the proofs offered in response to their demands for "proof". In one case, a person who had recently been married made just such a flip. I'd not met the partner, so I don't know what influence that might have had, but it's night and day.
Another was a person who I had always gotten energetic alarm bells from. One of those emotionally strange types who wore a lot of black and just seemed, 'off' somehow. This person over the years never had much to say, ever, on any subject; more than once described as 'vacant' and 'disassociated', became amazingly verbose, forceful and emotional when the subject of vaccination came up. It was absolutely weird.
In the end, I realized that after a certain point, these debates become attempts to abridge Free Will; the extreme Pro-Vaxx person does not want to know or to learn new things. However, since these debates are public, often starting with questions, or when I post an article on my own "Wall", with sometimes hundreds of people looking on, I tend not to back off, thinking less of the "Violation" aspect, and more of the "Give a Lie what it asks for".
But I try to do so in a measured way. I'll go back and forth a few times, enough to address the main points, and then back off rather than become mired down in pointless argument. If it is on my own page, I'll give warnings and then block users rather quickly.
Anyway, it is strange that it should come up now with such vehemence. I'm not convinced that it was the Disney story which caused the flare up of renewed debate, but it does line up time-wise.
Anyway...
As for books and resources...
-"The Better Baby Book", (Lana Asprey) does a brief but fair job of going over some of the more normal concerns wrt vaccination. It makes an effort to not engage in the fear-mongering approach so often adopted by the Anti-Vaxx side. The book's objective is not to discuss virology, but rather to help would-be parents trying to conceive through a variety of means, including low carb diet solutions, supplements, exercises and life practices when modern approaches to solving infertility issues have failed. I like this book a lot because it comes at the problem from a multi-disciplinary angle, suggesting comprehensive alternatives. It's easier to understand what vaccination is all about when it is taken in context with the rest of reality rather than in isolation. This seems obvious in retrospect, but when caught up in debate such approaches are easily overlooked.
-"Fear of the Invisible" (Janine Roberts) -You may already have looked at some of the stuff I've written about this book here:
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,35993.0.html
Roberts provides historical context and modern views from within the medical and regulatory communities regarding virology, all written with a firm journalistic approach and nearly a decade of attention to the project.
-"Doctor Mary's Monkey" (Ed Haslam) -This one is the most likely to be rejected out of hand as "Conspiracy Stuff", as it conjures names like Lee Harvey Oswald. However, it is earnestly researched and its contentions are well backed up. As one person I know put it, "But it's not conspiracy. It's all right there in the documents and interviews." -Which is not to say that Haslam doesn't speculate and sometimes use source material which is heretical, but he makes it very clear when and where he is doing so. Despite it's being unacceptable material for those who aren't going to look at any of this stuff regardless, those who are curious and who have some mastery over their automatic reactions, it's a wonderful read. Probably not for the average person on the fence, though. Know your audience.
Here's a radio interview with Haslam which is worth listening to: _https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ5-liXcXLI
Luckily, there are privacy experts, like JJ Luna, if you really had to disappear. ;)
