It only takes 4 senators to stop RFK from becoming head of HHS - risk is misinformation leading to return of diseases eliminated from the Americas long ago - but vaccines still help protect you
This is for people scared of RFK Jr but also for his supporters to help understand why medical experts are so opposed to this confirmation.
This is a copy of my page in Quora: It only takes 4 senators to stop RFK from becoming head of HHS - the risk is misinformation leading to return of diseases eliminated from the Americas long ago - but vaccines still help protect you
It is nothing to do with his ideas on healthy food. It is ALL about vaccines. He has promised he won’t stop vaccines, but he wants to warn people FALSELY about vaccines. He thinks they cause autism. But they don’t. It is the other way around.
We now know that many of the changes in the brain actually happen during pregnancy during fetal development. An autistic child’s brain is already an autistic brain when they are born. But the symptoms begin to be obvious to parents at around the same time they get their kids vaccinated.
I hope this graphic helps make it clear.
We have made extraordinary advances in eliminating infectious diseases using vaccines. We completely eliminated smallpox from the world. We are, or were, on track to eliminate polio too, both devastating diseases
.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
Why medical experts don't want JFK jr near public health.
No problems with healthy food.
But his vaccine misinformation could lead to the return of diseases vanquished from the Americas decades ago.
4 Republican senators are enough to block his confirmation.
Polio has almost been eradicated from the world - but it can return if vaccination rates drop below 90% as is happening in Gaza Strip.
Easily stopped with vaccination.
1 in 100 are paralysed for life in legs, arms or breathing muscles.
1 in 100 to 200 eventually die.
Last case:
Oceania: 1990
Europe: 1996
North America: 1990
South America: 1991.
Cases in 2023:
Africa: 509
Asia: 27
Graphic shows polio cases from:
I follow lots of medical professionals as a result of my fact checking for COVID and they of course universally are up in arms about Robert Kennedy jr getting anywhere near health care or medicine or safety or dental care (because of his views on fluorine in water).
However the head of the FDA is hopeful that if Robert Kennedy does become head of HHS that he may be open to a dialogue, looking at the very clear evidence and perhaps change his mind (FDA vaccines chief hopes for common ground with RFK Jr)
More on this below in the section: Peter Marks, head of the FDA says they will just have to engage in dialogue (if he is confirmed as head of HHS) and if Robert Kennedy is convinced it may bring others along with him
First, here is an example tweet and reply, Marc Veldhoen who heads a lab in Lisbon that studies immunology named after himMarc Veldhoen Lab - iMM ):
Words fail me. What a disaster. Is this the beginning of the return of preventable diseases?
And reply by Krutika Kuppalli who researches into emerging diseases like mpox:
Yes - imagine putting someone in charge of HHS who knows nothing about medicine and science yet wants to reverse all the scientific progress we have made by getting rid of #vaccines. That means return of polio, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis, meningitis and so many other things.
And her own post:
I honestly don’t have words for what a dark day this is. Scientists, public health officials and health workers have spent their lives dedicated toward eradicating diseases and developing vaccines to prevent them. In one fell swoop we have undone all this good and jeopardized the health and wellness of not just citizens of the US, but around the world.
This is also why I think it is near certain the Republicans do get together 4 senators to oppose him and why the Republicans have always been doubtful about him passing confirmation.
It only takes 4 senators to turn a 53 : 47 confirmation to 49 : 51 votes against confirmation. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski seem likely names for blocking most of the more unsuitable positions, so only two more would be needed.
They would likely be joined by Chuck Grassley opposed to Robert Kennedy’s ideas on changing how farmers produce their food. None of these have yet said how they will vote but that would be enough already to stop him if they all vote against.
Then there’s the physician Bill Cassidy who strongly supports vaccination and introduced a bipartisan bill to increase vaccination rates for expectant mothers. He also “created a private-public partnership to vaccinate 36,000 greater Baton Rouge area children against Hepatitis B at no cost to the schools or parents”.
Bill Cassidy says he has an open mind but seems an unlikely person to vote for him.
More about this below in the section: Likely at least 4 senators to vote against Robert Kennedy
Also in
It won’t be a major issue at the personal level so long as you are vaccinated, if measles, polio and many other preventable diseases came back to the Americas, but it would be a big set back for public health not just in the USA but globally too.
4 years is enough time for vaccine hesitancy to lead to most kindergarten groups in the USA having low enough levels of vaccination for these diseases to spread again.
The USA then with its trade and connections with the rest of the world can spread the diseases to other places. This is why so many medical experts not just in the USA but also globally hope that there will be four Republican senators brave enough to stand up to Trump and stop this confirmation.
Seems highly likely there will be.
He wants to stop vaccination of kids and he wants to end fluoridation of drinking water to protect kids teeth from tooth decay. It is based on ideas that were disproved long ago.
Risk of reversing some of the progress we made when we eliminated many childhood diseases from the Americas almost completely - many would still be vaccinated - don’t risk going back to levels of disease of mid 20th century
I don't think RFK's supporters realize quite how important vaccines are to the health of American citizens. The few currently who avoid vaccines aren't much of a problem but if it increased to more than 10% who refused vaccines then diseases like polio will return eventually as it has in Gaza Strip. It is a devastating disease for the kids who get it badly
Those who are already vaccinated have almost no risk from any measles outbreaks. Also most modern toothpaste is fluoride based, you have to search to find toothpaste that isn't, and that helps protect your teeth from tooth decay.
Even if outbreaks returned of measles, mumps, polio etc it would never reach anything like the levels that were normal in the mid century last century before vaccines never mind at the start of the 20th century.
Rather, it’s a risk of reversing some of the progress we made when we completely or almost completely eliminated many childhood diseases from the Americas. What is so frustrating is that all the disease and potentially deaths that would result are entirely preventable. Vaccine hesitancy globally directly causes preventable sickness and death. That’s the frustrating thing for doctors and why they are so focused on trying to help people understand that vaccines are safe and that the supposed link with autism is junk science that has no truth in it.
No connection between vaccines and autism which starts to develop in the brain before birth
For vaccines, Robert Kennedy’s ideas are based on the supposed link with autism. However it’s just a coincidence. The MMR vaccine is typically given to a kid at one year ol
d
. 0-18yrs-child-combined-schedule
That is around the same time that parents first notice the symptoms of autism in a child who already had autism.
However parents often make home movies of their kids. Experts who look at those home movies can detect autism which the parents never noticed. They can detect subtle signs in early infancy long before the MMR vaccine.
"Home-movie" studies
Clues to the causes of autism can be found in studies examining when the symptoms of autism are first evident. Perhaps the best data examining when symptoms of autism are first evident are the "home-movie" studies. These studies took advantage of the fact that many parents take movies of their children during their first birthday (before they have received the MMR vaccine).
Home movies from children who were eventually diagnosed with autism and those who were not diagnosed with autism were coded and shown to developmental specialists. Investigators were, with a very high degree of accuracy, able to separate autistic from non-autistic children at 1 year of age. These studies found that subtle symptoms of autism were present earlier than some parents had suspected, and that receipt of the MMR vaccine did not precede the first symptoms of autism. Other investigators extended the home-movie studies of 1-year-old children to include videotapes of children taken at 2 to 3 months of age.
Timing of first symptoms
Using a sophisticated movement analysis, videos from children eventually diagnosed with autism or not diagnosed with autism were coded and evaluated for their capacity to predict autism. Children who were eventually diagnosed with autism were predicted from movies taken in early infancy. This study supported the hypothesis that very subtle symptoms of autism are present in early infancy and argues strongly against vaccines as a cause of autism.
Twin studies also show it has to be genetic because if one of an identical twin has autism, more often than not their sibling does too, 60% of the time. If they are non identical (fraternal twins) then the chance the twin is autistic drops to 0%.
Genetics
One of the best ways to determine whether a particular disease or syndrome is genetic is to examine the incidence in identical and fraternal twins. Using a strict definition of autism, among twins in which one has been diagnosed with autism, approximately 60% of the time an identical twin is also diagnosed, and 0% of the time is a fraternal twin diagnosed with autism. Using a broader definition of autism (i.e., autistic spectrum disorder), these rates rise to approximately 92% in identical twins and about 10% of the time when the twins are fraternal. Therefore, autism clearly has a genetic basis.
It’s very clear that it is already present earlier on and it seems that an autistic child has an autistic brain at birth. There’s a lot of work to try to develop a test for autism during pregnancy. Researchers are working on a blood test which is not yet available for general use but that may achieve 90% predictability.
Research has shown that by analyzing 19 specific RNA genes in the mother's blood, it is possible to predict with an impressive 90% accuracy whether a child will develop autism later on. This potential to identify autism risk prenatally could lead to earlier interventions and improved outcomes for children diagnosed with autism.
…
While the accuracy rate for predicting autism through the prenatal blood test is high, it increases to 98% when factors such as gestational age, family history of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), and additional elements were taken into account [2].
Wakefield’s false claim has been refuted over and over in numerous large studies.
But Robert Kennedy Jr sadly doesn’t believe this research. At least, not so far. Perhaps if he does get the job of head of HHS and talks to experts he may change his views on it. At least that is the view of Peter Marks, head of FDA (FDA vaccines chief hopes for common ground with RFK Jr.), more on this later.
Risk of reversing some of the progress we made when we eliminated many childhood diseases from the Americas almost completely - many would still be vaccinated - don’t risk going back to levels of disease of mid 20th century
I don't think RFK's supporters realize quite how important vaccines are to the health of American citizens. The few currently who avoid vaccines aren't much of a problem but if it increased to more than 10% who refused vaccines then diseases like polio will return eventually as it has in Gaza Strip. It is a devastating disease for the kids who get it badly
Those who are already vaccinated have almost no risk from any measles outbreaks. Also most modern toothpaste is fluoride based, you have to search to find toothpaste that isn't, and that helps protect your teeth from tooth decay.
Even if outbreaks returned of measles, mumps, polio etc it would never reach anything like the levels that were normal in the mid century last century before vaccines never mind at the start of the 20th century.
Rather, it’s a risk of reversing some of the progress we made when we completely or almost completely eliminated many childhood diseases from the Americas. What is so frustrating is that all the disease and potentially deaths that would result are entirely preventable. Vaccine hesitancy globally directly causes preventable sickness and death. That’s the frustrating thing for doctors and why they are so focused on trying to help people understand that vaccines are safe and that the supposed link with autism is junk science that has no truth in it.
Claim dates back to a fraudulent researcher Wakefield who made up fake results to try to discredit the MMR vaccine to earn £28 million from sales of his alternative vaccine
This all dates back to ONE fraudulent researcher Wakefield. His aim wasn't to stop vaccination generally, his aim was only to stop the MMR vaccine specifically, so that his associates could make a fortune from selling an alternative to it.
In a private document that has now been uncovered his team says:
“It is estimated that by year 3, income from this testing could be about £3,300,000 rising to about £28,000,000 as diagnostic testing in support of therapeutic regimes come on stream.”
Yet the results of his fake autism study still continue to this day with people refusing measles vaccines and dying of measles because they believe this faked research which was discredited long ago.
Health professionals have been continuing to battle this misinformation about a link with autism to the present
Kid’s lives have definitely been lost because of vaccine misinformation
.
“I feel angry because I shouldn't have listened to the television and Facebook” One Filipino mother's worst fears were realized when her unvaccinated children caught measles.
Both of Arlyn’s children died of measles as a result of refusing a measles vaccine because of a story she read on Facebook
Her story is here . Measles deaths 'staggering and tragic'
That was from 2019 and the remarks of those health professionals continue to apply today:
Henrietta Fore, Unicef's executive director, said: "The unacceptable number of children killed last year by a wholly preventable disease is proof that measles anywhere is a threat to children everywhere."
Dr Seth Berkley, chief executive of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, said: "It is a tragedy that the world is seeing a rapid increase in cases and deaths from a disease that is easily preventable with a vaccine.
…
Prof Larson said: "These numbers are staggering. Measles, the most contagious of all vaccine-preventable diseases, is the tip of the iceberg of other vaccine-preventable disease threats and should be a wake-up call."
Health professionals have been battling this misinformation for many years.
The US is seeing a resurgence of measles because of vaccine hesitancy already, Idaho is the state with lowest vaccination levels below 80% and it requires 95% to stop measles outbreaks.
It isn't the most serious of diseases for most people. But in weaker economies 1 in 100 kids under 5 die of it. In stronger economies 1 in 5000 kids die.
We may eventually start seeing deaths from measles in the USA if the vaccine hesitancy stays for a long time significantly over 5 percent of the population.
Sadly there are hundreds of thousands of deaths yearly from measles in weaker economies.
Measles deaths globally have fallen by 80% since 2000 but in 2022 they rose again by nearly half the levels in 2021.
. New data shows “staggering” increase in measles deaths worldwide
Dr Rasmussen, a US virologist I follow put it like this:
QUOTE A vote for Trump is now quite literally a vote for dead or disabled children.
. Dr. Angela Rasmussen (@angie_rasmussen) on X (Dr. Angela Rasmussen (@angie_rasmussen) on X)
This is the Trump comment she responded to:
On RFK Jr. and vaccines:
DASHA: Do you think banning certain vaccines might be on the table?
TRUMP: Well I'm going to talk to him and talk to other people, and I'll make a decision, but he's a very talented guy and has strong views.
They also worry about the huge amount of extra work they will have constantly fact checking the administration on vaccine safety and such-like issues.
QUOTE STARTS
Another leading health expert, Georges Benjamin, who serves as executive director of the American Public Health Association, said people in the public listen to Kennedy, even if he has no credibility in the public health sector. Amplifying Kennedy’s voice could lead to distrust of scientific experts and undermine important messaging.
“We’re going to have to spend an enormous amount of time correcting this bad information out to the public,” Benjamin said. “People won’t know who to trust … not only can they undermine normal routine operations around things like vaccines, but what happens in emergency? You know, people won’t know who to believe.”
It could stress the health care system.
And if there is another pandemic, not that it's very likely so soon after Covid it could lead to lots of problems to have someone high up in the administration advising the public not to listen to doctors and health experts.
Or just some lesser health emergency. The mpox epidemic was largely stopped by vaccination.
So I hope this helps give some understanding of why medical professionals are so concerned.
This is NOT big pharma. These people don’t earn ANYTHING from vaccines. They are just medical researchers and health experts who want to stop epidemics and pandemics.
Robert Kennedy Jr’s mistaken views about fluoride in water - based on a junk science paper - could lead to kids having more tooth decay
Another of his views that concerns medical experts is his wish to ban fluoride in drinking water.
Robert Kennedy wants to ban this based on a very small highly flawed study that experts do NOT believe
The study title was: Fluoride exposure during pregnancy may be linked to neurobehavioural problems in kids
This is one comment on it.
it used a flawed method of measuring the fluoride, which the researchers themselves acknowledge is flawed
it was based on parents self-reporting whether a kid had problems using a test they had to do
The way the test was designed, parents with higher education levels could report more problems with their child
the study also found that parents with the highest income or education had the highest fluoride levels.
So the fluoride was likely associated directly with high education and income levels and only through that link, to more problems because the parents with more education and higher income were able to identify more problems with children that parents with low income and low education wouldn’t have spotted
So leading to an apparent link between fluoride and problems with their kids which is really just a link between fluoride and education level and income.
Professor Loc Do is a Professor of Dental Public Health in the School of Dentistry at The University of Queensland
"The Malin et al 2024 paper does not add to the body of knowledge due to major shortcomings with its exposure and outcome measurements, and small sample size. Those shortcomings render the study’s findings unreliable.
Exposure to fluoride in this study was measured by spot urinary fluoride analysis, which is highly variable within a person even during a day. This major shortcoming was even acknowledged in a paper, of which Malin was a co-author. Even 24-hour urinary fluoride measurement (a much more reliable exposure measurement) cannot measure chronic fluoride exposure in individuals (Rugg-Gunn et al. 2011). An inexplainable observation when those with the highest income or education had markedly high mean urinary fluoride levels, pointing to the unreliability of this measure in this study.
The outcome measure has high measurement error, requiring relatively high literacy, and close attention to the child. Those with the highest income or education (also with the highest mean urinary fluoride in this study) could observe and report more problems about their child than others, leading to assessment bias.
The study was also far too small to balance measuring errors and they didn’t cite other research that contradicted their results.
The sample was very small (only 229), and not adequate to balance expected measurement errors. Even a few individuals with biased measurements could completely alter the overall findings.
The paper did not cite all the literature that contradicted their findings. An Australian nationwide study with a large population-based sample (2,682 children) did not find any effect of early life exposure to fluoride on child neurobehavioural development and executive functioning. The exposure measurement of fluoride exposure in this study was objective and fixed. It used two sophisticated instruments of child neurobehavioural development and executive functioning."
In short, it is a VERY controversial study, small sample size, badly conducted and the expert reaction is scathing.
Again this is the sort of thing that would dent public confidence in fluorine in water though I don’t think it is likely he could really ban it.
If Kennedy does get the job he will be way out of depth due to not having much understanding of basic ideas in medicine.
He is a lawyer. His father was a former US attorney general, under his brother John F. Kennedy. Sadly both his uncle and his father were assassinated, his uncle as president and his father when running for president.
See: Robert F. Kennedy: Attorney General
Your kids’ risk is very low so long as you continue to get your kids vaccinated and ignore any vaccine misinformation
However your risk is veyr low on an individual level then people continue to get their kids vaccinated their risk is very low as especially the measles vaccine provides very high close to 100% protection against measles.
The main risk is for those who may be influenced by him to stop getting their kids vaccinated.
So there is a realistic concern that if Trump is elected it could lead to measles outbreaks again. Not instantly but more and more smaller outbreaks with each year of his presidency.
The measles outbreaks increasing would probably be the first signs of the effects of Kennedy’s appointment if he does get the job.
Likely at least 4 senators to vote against Robert Kennedy
Before he can be confirmed in the Senate he first has to be approved by the Senate Finance Dommittee. There a few Republican defections could sink his chances.
See: . These senators hold RFK Jr.’s fate in their hands. Here’s what they think about him.
These senators would also be expected to vote against him in the Senate.
The most likely include Chuck Grassley who is opposed to Robert Kennedy’s ideas about changing how farmers produce food
[correction removed Tim Scott who supports fluorine in water but doesn’t seem likely to oppose Kennedy on the topic].
Politico lists a few examples
John Thune, South Dakota: The incoming Senate majority leader said he won’t make judgments on any nominees “at this point.”
Chuck Grassley, Iowa: A spokesperson for the senator declined to comment. In an interview with AgriTalk Radio in October, however, Grassley said there are ways to “make America Healthy Again” without “upsetting the way we produce food.”
“Whatever ideas he has about making lives … more healthy, it’s got to be compromised with producing enough food so everyone doesn’t die,” Grassley said.
. These senators hold RFK Jr.’s fate in their hands. Here’s what they think about him.
There are four physician Senators, all Republican. You’d expect a doctor to be opposed to RFK but it’s not clear they will be.
Roger Marshall (R-KS) is a COVID vaccine conspiracy theorist and Rand Paul is friends with Robert Kennedy so we can discount those two as unlikely to vote against him.
Bill Cassidy seemed most likely because he supports a clinic to vaccinate kids. He said:
QUOTE “RFK Jr. has championed issues like healthy foods and the need for greater transparency in our public health infrastructure,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), a physician and the incoming chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. “I look forward to learning more about his other policy positions and how they will support a conservative, pro-American agenda.” https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/14/rfk-jr-trump-mixed-reviews-00189711
But then he wouldn’t be expected to say at this stage if he will vote against.
Bill Cassidy is also one of the seven Republican senators who voted to convict Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial on Jan 06. The other two who are still in the Senate are Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski.
See: 7 GOP Senators Voted To Convict Trump. Only 1 Faces Voters Next Year
(Lisa Murkowski is the one who faced voters the next year).
Finally John Barrasso dodged the question before Robert Kennedy’s pick.
Barrasso, who is a physician specializing in orthopedics, also dodged questions about whether he’d support Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an infamous vaccine and fluoride skeptic, serving in the Trump White House.
“Well, since President Trump hasn’t actually made any nominations yet along those lines, I’m not going to comment on any one individual,” the senator said.
. Sen. John Barrasso dodges when asked if Trump should maintain DOJ's independence
So there are two Republican physicians who might vote against him.
Then there are Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski who are likely to vote against most of the unqualified candidates.
So, including Chuck Grassley, Tim Scott, that makes it 4 votes against, or 5 if you include Bill Cassidy, 6 with John Barrasso, 7 if John Thune votes against.
TheHill has listed a total of 9 senators that could vote against some of the most unsuitable picks.
From those we could add 6 more that might or might not vote against Kennedy
John Curtis:
Curtis has already signaled he would not support putting the Senate into an extended recess to allow Trump to circumvent the confirmation process by making recess appointments.
“Senator-elect Curtis believes that every president is afforded a degree of deference to select his team and make nominations,” Curtis’s chief of staff, Corey Norman, told KSL-TV in Salt Lake City. “He also firmly believes in and is committed to the Senate’s critical role to confirm or reject nominations based on information and insight from confirmation hearings.”
Todd Young
He did not endorse Trump for president in 2024 and has criticized him for refusing to call Russian President Vladimir Putin a war criminal.He also faulted Trump for the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol but did not vote to convict him of inciting insurrection.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)
Thom Tillis is not afraid to play the role of Republican maverick if he feels strongly about a nominee or an issue, and he’s already suggesting Gaetz might not have much support in the Senate.
Yet McConnell, an institutionalist and defense hawk, is not likely to rubber-stamp Trump’s nomination of Gaetz to head the Justice Department if he thinks it would undermine public confidence in the nation’s top law enforcement institution.
“Looking at his track record, he’s never cowed to Trump on things, especially as they relate to the Senate and the Senate’s role,” a Senate Republican aide said.
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)
Joni Ernst told The Hill that Gaetz has an “uphill climb” to securing enough votes to win confirmation, and she’s taking a wait-and-see approach to Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard, the former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii who is Trump’s pick serve as director of national intelligence.
…
Ernst lost her race to become Senate Republican Conference chair and may be more inclined to break with her party now that she will no longer be a member of the elected leadership.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)
John Cornyn pledged to get Trump’s nominees through the Senate quickly when he was running against Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.) and Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) to become the next Senate majority leader.
The Texan, however, lost that race, which could give him more freedom to criticize Trump’s picks, especially if he doesn’t think they’re qualified for the highest-profile Cabinet roles.
So - we can’t see the future but you can see why many thought he was unlikely to be confirmed in the Senate and why it is a surprise that Trump selected him for a position that needs Senate confirmation.
There are several more possibilities in this list here
Peter Marks, head of the FDA says they will just have to engage in dialogue (if he is confirmed as head of HHS) and if Robert Kennedy is convinced it may bring others along with him
However on the plus side, Dr. Peter Marks, who was involved in operation warp speed for Trump, says if Kennedy does get the job he is going to try talking to Robert Kennedy Jr about vaccines.
Robert Kennedy accuses the FDA of having hidden secret records of vaccine harm.
As reported by CBS, Marks responding to the news said:
"There's no secret files. I mean, if they're secret, I hold a security clearance. If they are secret from me then, they must be at some other level of classification,"
He sees a silver lining here, that perhaps by talking to Robert Kennedy in public dialogue, that Robert Kennedy gets convinced that the vaccines are indeed safe it may bring others along with him in the country.
"What I would ask of him is that he keep an open mind. We're happy to try to show as much of the data as we can. And I think the data are essentially overwhelming, in certain areas, but we'll just have to engage in the dialogue,"
"Perhaps engaging in that dialogue, especially if it's in a public venue, it may help. It may help bring some of the rest of the country along because sometimes as somebody is convinced, perhaps, maybe some of the rest of the country will be,"
This is a model we can all follow, to try talking to those with these ideas, try listening as well in genuine dialogue.
Dr Mike Ryan gave a very good Q/A during the COVID pandemic about how to talk to people who don’t listen, contradict and argue.
How to talk to people who don’t listen, contradict, and argue - on COVID or climate change, politics, and many other things - Mike Ryan of the WHO
This is an extract from a WHO live social media Q/A where Mike Ryan gave useful tips on how to handle this situation most of us meet every day where you can easily get caught up in what he calls a “slugfest” of firing facts at each other.
There is a better way of doing it involving listening to concerns, helping them to access good information, and gentle persuasion, gradually flooding the space with good information. Maybe you “win” fewer arguments this way - but does that really matter?
As usual I will add short summaries in simpler direct speech for mildly autistic readers.
This infographic may also help.
From: The bumper Toby Morris & Siouxsie Wiles Covid-19 box set
Dr Mike Ryan answers questions about it, 45:42 into this video
Alexander Kuzmanovic: thank you very much Mike maybe you can take the next question from antonio heider also watching on facebook What's the best way to change social behavior when people don't listen contradict and argue, what's your view on fast social change?
What is the best way to change social behaviour when people don’t listen, contradict and argue?
Mike Ryan: Antonio asks that question? If antonio has the answer he has a job, okay, contact me with the answer to that question.
Look it it is very tough, human behavior is a wonderful thing, but it's sometimes very hard to understand what drives us.
Human behaviour is a wonderful thing.
Sometimes it is very hard to understand what drives us.
I think it's about persuasion when you're with colleagues and friends, and we've seen the arguments.
It’s about persuasion with colleagues and friends
and unfortunately a lot of the discussions we've had of late in many areas of our life, be it climate or politics, or COVID, they become very binary and it's good and bad, you're with us, you're against us.
We've entered into a kind of a coarse dialogue, on things in which we become ideologic and absolutist.
It’s become very binary, good and bad, with us or against us.
It’s become a coarse dialogue, idologic and absoluist
And unfortunately life is not like that, and life is about biology it's squishy and it's messy.
Life is not like that. Life is about biology, squishy and messy.
And there are no easy answers so we can take a view that well you're wrong because you won't socially distant or you don't believe in the vaccine but people very often have genuine concerns.
We can take a vew “Well you’re wrong because you won’t socially distance, or you don’t believe in the vaccine”.
Those concerns might not come from a place of good information, they may come from propaganda, but more often than that the person you're arguing with it has strong feelings that what they believe to be true is true, and that their views and their opinions are important, and they should be listened to.
Those concerns might not come from a place of good information.
Those concerns may come from propaganda.
But more often than not the person you argue has strong feelings that these things are true. They feel that what they believe to be true is true.
The difficulty is listening to those opinions when there's clear evidence that that is not the right thing to do, and it's really easy in that situation to either become aggressive, to become dismissive and then turn it into a battle of the facts, or a battle of the science, and it turns into this kind of discourse that that is not a dialogue anymore.
It's me shouting at you, you shouting at me.
"I'm right, no you're wrong.
It’s difficult to listen when you know there is clear evidence that this is not the right thing to do.
It can easily become aggressive and dismissive, a battle of the facts or a battle of the science.
That is not a dialogue any more. It’s me shouting at you, and you shouting at me.
"I'm right, no you're wrong.
" And my experience in epidemics and ebola and others it really does require stepping back and leaving leaving your ego at the door, leaving the need to be right or wrong at the door, all that matters in the end is we can leave the room and and people have an opportunity to think, or rethink.
From my experience with Ebola, and other epidemics, it requires stepping back, leaving your ego at the door.
What matters in the end is we leave the room and people have an opportunity to think, or rethink.
And when you have a discussion with someone else who you don't believe is behaving in the right way, don't expect them to all of a sudden come to some realization that you are now right and you're a guru and you've been right all along.
How many people in your life have ever announced that to you? Most of the time behavior changes comes when you're respectful, you give people the information, you give them facts, you tell them where they can find other facts, and leave them, and give them space to think it through.
Don’t expect them to come to some realization that you have been right all along - how many people have announced that to you?
Most often behaviour changes come when you’re respectful.
Give people
information,
facts
where they can find other facts
And leave them and give them space to think things through.
And if enough people are having those types of conversations, I believe society moves through a persuasive dialogue, and not through an ideologic slugfest which we seem to have reduced our societies to, across politics, and even on climate change, and other things.
I believe society moves through a persuasive dialogue, not through an ideologic slugfest.
We seem to have reduced our societies to an ideologic slugfest across politics, even on climate change, and other things.
So I do think we need to find another way to to have our discussions with each other, and within communities.
The other thing is within our community dialogues we've we've kind of lost also.
I think that ability to discuss things as communities, we've become more isolated in our own worlds, our own unitary families, and we are connected through social media.
We have also kind of lost community dialogues [in real life].
We have become isolated in our own worlds, and unitary families, and connected through social media.
And that's one of the great advantages now is that even though we might not be physically, we have communities and I do think we need to again generate discussion that is healthy, and not drive outcomes because we need to score a point to be right or to be wrong, and how we do that, generate a discussion where people can access the information they need.
That is one of the great advantages now. We need to
generate discussion that is healthy.
not drive outcomes, because we need to score a point, or to be right, or to be wrong.
By doing that we generate a discussion where people can access the information they need.
The other thing and I know you deal with this all the time alex and the work you do with the with the team here, I don't believe we should go after the bad messengers.
We go after the message not the messengers.
The other thing is, I don’t believe we should go after the bad messengers.
We go after the message, not the messengers.
I know you've been a great proponent of that here, getting good information out.
It's like a vaccine against the bad information we use a vaccine to get rid of the virus, we need good information to get rid of the bad information.
Getting good information out to get rid of the bad information.
Good information is like a vaccine against the bad information.
I don't think it's a good thing to be just saying we need to attack the message of, that's the wrong message I don't think that works in the long run so flooding this zone as I don't know if the person is from america but they say that in the in american football don't they.
"flood the zone" you know I don't know about american football but we need to flood that space, and if we leave vacuums, vacuums are very dangerous things when it comes to attitudes and information.
We need to fill the space with good information, with dialogue, and with persuasion, not vitriol and accusation and that for me takes longer, it's more frustrating, but when change comes it's real.
We need to fill the space with
good information
persuasion
dialogue
NOT with
vitriol
accusation
That takes longer, it’s frustrating, but when change comes, it’s real.
And we need to shift the mores of society in many societies.
We need to shift the mores of society - in many societies.
[mores = characteristic customs and conventions]
For example when you look at things like driving under the influence, and for many years you know driving under the influence of alcohol in some countries was entirely acceptable.
How did society change from that where you basically could put your car keys on the bar get drunk and then everyone expected you to drive home, to now if you walked into a bar and even showed car keys, the bartender would probably not serve you because it would be such a shock that someone would even think [to do that].
For many years it was acceptable to drink and drive. Now a bartender would likely refuse to serve you if you showed your car keys.
How does society move from a complete acceptance of a behavior to a completely different way of thinking about something?
How does society move from complete acceptance of a behaviour to a completely different way of thinking about something?
And we need to think about consequence, and when we start to think about the consequences of our actions, if we speed, go beyond the speed limit, if we drink and drive, and we start thinking about what speed it should be, or what the level of alcohol should be, and we have all these arguments.
If we think a little bit more about what are the consequences of those actions.
When a mother has to bury a daughter because they're killed at a pedestrian crossing by a drunk driver that's consequence, and when people start to think about consequences, I think they become more reasonable in at least discussing what what has led to those consequences.
We need to think about consequences.
When people start to think about consequences, when a mother has to bury a daugher because they’re killed at a pedestrian crossing by a drunk driver, that’s a consequence.
When people think about consequences that’s when they become more reasonable at least about those actions.
When you're stuck in the mire of I'm right you're wrong, and this is a safe level, and this is nothing, I think we get nowhere.
And the consequences right now of people not taking care are full ICUs, people dead before their time the long-term COVID haulers who are now struggling with long-term impacts of COVID, and more people dying than need to, or should die before we get to the year of vaccination.
And right now in this stretch and I would say it's at least four to six months before we have significant levels of vaccination going on anywhere.
We have to get through this and the only way we get through this is finding a way to behave that's functional and that reduces risks and actually avoids those awful consequences.
I would say it is at least four to six months before we have significant levels of vaccination going on anywhere.
We have to get through this.
The only way to get through this is to find a way to behave that’s functional, and reduces risks and actually avoids those awful consequences.
And I see it every night on TV or we see it in the newspapers those personal stories of the loss that people have suffered, and the virus that killed them came from somewhere, it came from the community, from us, and our behavior determines those consequences.
So reasonable respectful dialogue push good information.
We hear about personal stories of people that suffered and died. The virus that killed them came from somewhere.
The virus that killed thse people came from the community, it came from us. Our behavior determines whether other people die or survive.
don't expect your argument to win it's not about winning the argument.
It's about changing behavior and changing expectations around behavior.
I think if we take that approach we'll we'll bring more people with us on this journey.
And we may win less arguments but does that really matter.
Don’t expect to win the argument. It is not about winning the argument.
It is about changing behaviour and expectations for behaviour.
We’ll bring more people with us on this journey.
We may win less arguments - but does winning the arguments really matter?
[Shortened version of BLOG: How to talk to people who don’t listen, contradict, and argue - on COVID or climate change, politics, and many other things - Mike Ryan of the WHO]
SEE ALSO
CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL
If you need to talk to me about something it is often far better to do so via private / direct messaging because Quora often fails to notify me of comment replies.
You can Direct Message my profile (then More >> messages). Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com
Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:. Robert Walker I usually get Facebook messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.
FOR MORE HELP
To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date See also my Short debunks
Scared and want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group. Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly
Facebook group Doomsday Debunked
Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking or to help scared people who are panicking.
SEARCH LIST OF DEBUNKS
You can search by title and there’s also an option to search the content of the blog using a google search.
CLICK HERE TO SEARCH: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date
NEW SHORT DEBUNKS
I do many more fact checks and debunks on our facebook group than I could ever write up as blog posts. They are shorter and less polished but there is a good chance you may find a short debunk for some recent concern.
See Latest short debunks for new short debunks
I also do tweets about them. I also tweet the debunks and short debunks to my Blue Sky page here:
Then on the Doomsday Debunked wiki, see my Short Debunks page which is a single page of all the earlier short debunks in one page.
I do the short debunks more often but they are less polished - they are copies of my longer replies to scared people in the Facebook group.rough Ukraine and will do so no matter what its allies do to support Ukraine.