So…this post is not directed to anyone in this thread who is genuinely trying to question and debate the use of the MMR vaccine.
This post is solely to @Cathmidston who is very obviously an AIDS DENIALIST, and also seemingly a denialist of many other things like cancer/treatment. So this post is not just about AIDs denialism, it is about other denialism too.
Done a bit of research and talked to others who have encountered this sort of thing. General consensus is DO NOT ENGAGE IN DEBATE WITH PEOPLE LIKE CATHMIDSTON. There is absolutely no point as there’s simply is no debate with people like her.
There are a lot of articles on this but this link explains things a little and is quite a good explanation of denialism in general newhumanist.org.uk/articles/2165/how-to-spot-an-aids-denialist
There is also a Hall of Shame in there – you might recognize a few names Cath has mentioned. Just to point out a few things mentioned other posters might recognize in Cath’s posts (try interchanging HIV/AIDS with things like cancer to get the idea)
- AIDS denialism tells us what anyone would want to hear – that HIV does not cause AIDS and that if you live a “healthy lifestyle” (whatever that is) you won’t get AIDS.
- AIDS denialism is one of several incarnations of denialism. All denialism is defined by rhetorical tactics designed to give the impression of a legitimate debate among experts when in fact there is none
- The more sophisticated efforts of AIDS denialism, like the “documentary” House of Numbers, are most disturbing because they use every trick in the denialist playbook to juxtapose pseudoscience with established science. The best way to recognise AIDS denialism is to know their common tricks of persuasion.
- There are two sides to every debate. But just asserting there is a debate does not mean there is one. AIDS denialists rely on a small band of fake experts, mostly retired academics who proclaim that HIV does not cause AIDS. There is not a single instance of an “expert” offered by AIDS denialism that has ever actually done research on AIDS. (then goes on to mention so called experts referenced by Cath and explains why thy are not experts in this field – Mullis for example, never did any research on AIDS)
- For AIDS deniers, everything old is new again. AIDS denialists rely on selected research findings from the days when not much was known about AIDS.
- Unfortunately, outdated scientific literature is not purged when new knowledge emerges. AIDS deniers use this information to create the illusion of a live debate. Denialists select old findings that support their flawed logic because they have no evidence of their own. Cherrypicking is another favourite rhetorical technique of denialists. This involves selecting a lone scientific finding, presenting the results out of context, and deploying it as evidence for their own conclusions.
- AIDS denialists will also demand even more specific evidence, only to change the demand once the evidence is produced.
- But while some denialists are clearly charlatans out to make a quick buck out of other people’s misery, many are perfectly genuine, which is what makes them especially dangerous (Cath – this is you) They can be persuasive because they actually believe what they say. Evidence means nothing to them. Their thought process resembles what psychiatrists call an “encapsulated delusion”, where despite what appears to be otherwise rational thinking there is an intractable maladaptive belief system that is impermeable to contrary evidence
- And finally, hard as it might be for believers in free speech and open debate, if you encounter AIDS denialism, do not enter into a debate. AIDS denialists want to create the impression that there is a debate regarding HIV causing AIDS and debating feeds the illusion. This debate was exhausted years ago
As said above, there is NO point debating anything with Cath. The only “good” thing is, she CANNOT and WILL NOT recommend that we all believe as she does and actively cease any medication/vaccination that in her eyes will do more harm than good and instead lead a healthy lifestyle. This is because she is NOT SURE (and doesn’t dare!) So there is hope yet for her family!
So the gist of this is…DO NOT ENGAGE IN DEBATE WITH CATHMIDSTON. SHE IS DANGEROUS AND SPOUTS ABSOLUTE CRAP. TO DO SO WOULD BE A WASTE OF TIME.