Yet another bimbo "wellness" blogger found to be a fraud

[ivylass]

@dasmoocher

Saw this on LinkedIn today:The Collapse of Food Babe: Or, How Not to Manage a Crisis. You might have to be a member to read it, but some highlights:

That article is full of great links to other articles. I spent about 30 minutes going from one to another to another.

[LavenderBlue]

@RickJay

This is the critical thing; people have to pay a price.

Being nagged and insulted on the Internet simply isn’t much of a price. It’s pennies, relatively speaking, and will convince no one. If anything it might have value, as it allows the antivaxxers a cheap, easily dealt with bit of evidence they’re a tribe of truth-speakers under siege from the Monsanto Big Pharma Freemason MSM or whatever the hell it is this week.

If you want to change people’s behaviour, you need to change the incentives, and it begins with making them pay. I maintain that the first thing government should do is pass the Pandemic Risk Tax Act, which states that any parent refusing that have their children immunized to the basic schedule without a legitimate and provable medical exemption (no religious exemptions, either) should pay 10% of their gross income in additional income tax for the first child and 5% for every child thereafter. Refusal to pay the tax is tax evasion, you go to prison. Sound unaffordable? Watch them get the kids vaccinated. That law alone would wipe out the antivax movement, in all likelihood.

But that being probably politically impossible - well, until we have a goddamn pandemic - what people need to do is insist on REAL consequences. Screaming about it on Facebook does nothing. We need to impose actual real life consequences. If your kid is not vaccinated, they cannot come over to play with my kid, full stop. In fact, they’re not to be in my house at all. Parents should impose those rules. They should badger their schools to keep the germie parents’ kids out, or marginalize them as much as possible. Hurt them in real life.

The key thing to remember about the germies is that for mot of them this is a fad, an abstract fashion. They do not understand the danger of polio, measles and rubella. They’ve never seen it. They perceive this as being essentially a cost-free way of proving their organic/fashionable bona fides. If you make them feel real pain for keeping up with this, most of them will abandon it and forget about it in no time.

The Aussies agree with you (and me) on this:

Abbott government withdraws childcare payments for anti-vaccination parents

Parents who are “conscientious objectors” to childhood vaccination will have their childcare and family tax payments stopped from 1 January next year as the federal government attempts to crack down on the anti-vaccination movement.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced on Sunday a loophole would be closed to stop payments to parents worth up to $15,000 per child.

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

This is precisely the right way to go about it.

[Jackmannii]

I wonder if Food Babe-style silliness about “toxins” will ever reach a point of such ridiculousness that the general public will tune out.

For instance - today I saw a review on Amazon of a book by a prominent antivaxer. The reviewer, who described herself as a pediatric nurse, was railing about toxins in vaccines. Among these horrific chemicals, she singled out amino acids, dextrose and mineral salts.

Think of it - amino acids! Forcibly injected into helpless infants!! :eek:

I felt compelled to point out that these chemicals can be found in infant formula as well. Expect all hell to break loose as antivaxers join forces with the Food Babe to demand their removal.

[74westy]

Thank God mother’s milk doesn’t have dangerous amino acids!

[dasmoocher]

But aren’t amino acids organic? All natural, sez I. Maybe they should also use organic mineral salts or this.

[Princhester]

@DCnDC

Great. I’m all for it. By the way, how’s that going for you?

How’s berating people going for you? There is very little that works with this nonsense. However, what actual scientific evidence there is suggests that trust is absolutely key in having people prefer what you tell them. And you are a scientific person, right? You don’t just go with what your emotions tell you to do, do you?

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Exactly. There’s about as much evidence that politely pretending there are two sides to the issue is effective in changing people’s mind on this subject as there is that bromelain cures cancer.

Fuck that shit. Consider this - would you rather get treated by the doctor who was told during her training “No, that’s wrong. Get your shit together and learn the facts” or the one who was told, “Well, I see your point, but perhaps that’s not quite right.”

I never said a damn thing about “two sides to the issue”. When you are strawmanning, it’s time to consider why you are needing to make shit up in order to convince yourself your position has substance.

And your doctor thing is total Wookie. What the hell do doctors in training have to do with anything? I would hope that doctors in training are rational people. WTF does convincing them have to do with convincing the type of idiots who are into “wellness”? Further, of course my preference is to go to doctor who bases their practice on the facts. Meanwhile, out there amongst the masses, there “alternative medicine” fraudsters who are making an extremely good living out of being nice to people while talking bullshit and doling out the snakeoil. Those fraudsters know a thing or two more than you appear to do about how to convince people of things.

@Budget_Player_Cadet

It may not help convince them, but people who aren’t sure are less likely to side with the people who are being shamed over it.

Your post proceeds from the (wrongheaded) assumption that those who aren’t sure will consider your shaming to be appropriate. If you sympathise with a person’s point of view and then a bystander starts berating them and shaming them for that point of view, do you move away from the person, or think the bystander is a bullying asshole?

Your immersion in your own worldview (which is also mine, to be clear) is so complete that you don’t seem able to see the difficulties in dealing with those of a very different worldview.

[Stanislaus]

@LavenderBlue

The Aussies agree with you (and me) on this:

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

This is precisely the right way to go about it.

Except when children are unvaccinated not because of parents’ woo beliefs but because of low levels of literacy, poor engagement with the welfare/health system and general social marginalisation. Then this policy would simply make poor families poorer.

(I don’t know to what extent unvaccinated children meet these criteria, but it leaves room for a pretty major unintended consequence. I like the idea in theory, but I what I read of Tony Abbot doesn’t inspire me with confidence in his grasp of detail.)

[Jackmannii]

@Stanislaus

Except when children are unvaccinated not because of parents’ woo beliefs but because of low levels of literacy, poor engagement with the welfare/health system and general social marginalisation. Then this policy would simply make poor families poorer.

Money should not be an issue, as Australia makes vaccines on the childhood schedule free to all comers.

I would also question any assumption that Australians are too illiterate to understand that government benefits come with the responsibility to keep one’s children vaccinated.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Princhester, please cite the vast literature to which you keep alluding.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Here, for example, is empirical evidence that suggests simply correcting misinformation may generate counter-intuitive results:

Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2015). Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information.Vaccine, 33(3), 459-464.

Corrective information adapted from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website significantly reduced belief in the myth that the flu vaccine can give you the flu as well as concerns about its safety. However, the correction also significantly reduced intent to vaccinate among respondents with high levels of concern about vaccine side effects – a response that was not observed among those with low levels of concern. This result, which is consistent with previous research on misperceptions about the MMR vaccine, suggests that correcting myths about vaccines may not be an effective approach to promoting immunization.

Here is a journalist considering how these issues should be covered:

How should journalists cover quacks like Dr. Oz or the Food Babe?

I made my first call to Ben Goldacre, a British author, physician, and longtime slayer of bad science. When asked how he decides to cover a quack or crackpot idea, he said, “To me, it depends on whether the way they misused science is interesting enough that it makes a good pop-science column.” This was all part of his science advocacy mission. “Mocking people who misuse science is a really useful gimmick for communicating how science works,” he said.

Bolding mine in both instances.

[wonky]

@Princhester

Your post proceeds from the (wrongheaded) assumption that those who aren’t sure will consider your shaming to be appropriate. If you sympathise with a person’s point of view and then a bystander starts berating them and shaming them for that point of view, do you move away from the person, or think the bystander is a bullying asshole?

Honestly? Probably both.

I take it on board, even if I don’t agree with it. It will shock me into thinking about it, usually.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Princhester, just a reminder; I am very interested in seeing the extensive empirical evidence to which you repeatedly refer.

[Princhester]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Here, for example, is empirical evidence that suggests simply correcting misinformation may generate counter-intuitive results:

What’s your point?

Here is a journalist considering how these issues should be covered:

Ben Goldacre makes his living from writing entertaining columns mocking anti-science. I enjoy them but then we all enjoy having our predilictions confirmed, don’t we? How effective his mocking columns are with those who don’t agree with his point of view is a moot point.

Anyway, a basic primer would be the wikipedia article on “Source credibilty”. Start googling on that term and you will find more papers than you could read in a year. A simple quote from the wikipedia page:

Speakers must also present themselves to be likable since people are more inclined to trust those they generally like or feel comfortable with in a room. Being friendly, easy going, warmhearted, nice and kind can carry the speaker into a very comfortable space with the audience. Once the audience is at ease, the speaker can generally present their information, and it will be perceived positively.

A good basic summary with references can be found on this page. There is a lot there to summarise but in short persuasion is influenced not just by the facts presented but also the credibility of the source. There are a number of factors that go into credibility but there is a high correlation between credibility and things like niceness, kindness and friendliness.

[Mighty_Girl]

Gibson admits she lied.

Or not, I am not sure. That was a big word salad, without even a pinch of remorse, and a heaping tablespoon of “blame it on mama”. She still lacks shame. Maybe there’s a herbal remedy for that.

[Trion]

@Mighty_Girl

Gibson admits she lied.

Or not, I am not sure. That was a big word salad, without even a pinch of remorse, and a heaping tablespoon of “blame it on mama”. She still lacks shame. Maybe there’s a herbal remedy for that.

Well, in her defense, I also keep wavering between what I think I know and what I really know. And what reality really is. And what I know about reality and what I think I know about what I think I lived. Ya know?

Look, it’s been a complex year and I think if I don’t know, then the theories about the answers may indicate if I’m lying about what I think I know. The important thing to remember is that when I was growing up I suddenly and without warning had to walk to school on my own. Uphill. Both ways. In the snow.

Can I have a book deal now?

[Mighty_Girl]

@Trion

In the snow.

Year round.

[Mighty_Girl]

Clearly, she needs to write a new book about her ordeal of having to walk to school and do chores at home. Too many of us suffered through that indignity and we need help.

[Trion]

As someone who’s had cancer, I’m occasionally asked what I think should be done with people like her. I usually answer that anyone who says she has cancer should be treated like someone who has cancer. Let’s start with a few rounds of chemotherapy.

[Mighty_Girl]

What pisses me off is that various media outlets have approached this as “what psychological problem has made Gibson do this?” instead of “why did we just believe the first thing a pretty face told us?”.

There are millions of fuckups in this world, let’s just not give them a platform, even if they have a pretty face, please. OK?

[Trion]

Screw it. I’m having toxins for dinner tonight.