Critical Thinking: When to be Skeptical

It is usually better to be a little skeptical than to be gullible or credulous. A good way to do this is to question everything until several trusted sources have confirmed an idea. Lately journalists have often overlooked this safeguard of finding several trusted sources, allowing the drive to be first to block out the need to be accurate. A sarcastic comment used to be, “I know it’s true; I read it on the Internet.” But that can apply today to what were at one time reliable sources as they cite a single “unnamed source.”

One area where skepticism has run amok is the resistance to vaccinations. The anti-vaccination movement is becoming stronger, even as it continues to be the poster child for misinformation. Those opposed to vaccinations are not using critical thinking when they continue to question and challenge the safety of vaccines basing their position entirely on faulty evidence and discredited research promoted by unreliable sources.

The debunking of any connection between measles vaccinations and autism is old news, over a decade old. The original study was discredited; the doctor promoting the idea was accused of falsifying data and had his license to practice revoked. Yet some still believe.

Those believers are not just a bunch of ignorant crackpots. Less than six months ago, a chiropractor in Canada was under investigation by the regulatory authority for spreading anti-vaccination views. The CBC described her as making “unfounded claims about vaccinations and the negative effects they can have on people's health, including the disproved theory linking vaccinations with autism.” She did this through public speaking, her blog and social media page. 

Last November she was formally notified by those regulators that they “considered advice about vaccination and immunization on her Web site and social media platforms to be (a) outside the scope of chiropractic, (b) untruthful marketing activity, and (c) contrary to the chiropractic regulations [regarding] vaccination and immunization policy, code of ethics....” You can’t get more definitive than that! Rather than undergo a hearing, she surrendered her license.

The anti-vaccine movement deals in what is so obviously misinformation that even the Internet media giants are taking action. Google is very blunt: “Under YouTube’s Advertiser-Friendly Content Guidelines, we are and have been demonetizing anti-vaccination content under our longstanding harmful or dangerous advertising policy.” Facebook’s stated goal on this subject “is to reduce the spread of inaccurate information about vaccines by reducing its distribution in News Feed, removing groups and pages that promote misinformation from recommendation surfaces, and providing authoritative information to people who might encounter it.”

Likewise, Amazon removed “at least five anti-vaccination documentaries questioning the safety of vaccines from its Prime Video streaming platform.” These decisions are not motivated by a political agenda. They are made in recognition that the misinformation is dangerous.

Even with all the evidence that anti-vaccination sentiments are misguided, dangerous, untruthful and disproved, and even in the wake of the recent measles outbreak, state lawmakers have not gotten the message. With at least 333 cases reported in 15 states and discussions in Washington calling it “a growing public health threat," at least 20 states have introduced bills this year that would make it easier for people to opt out and for parents to exempt their children. Yes, they would pass laws to make it easier to put their children and others in danger.

Refusal to believe such well supported evidence, instead reacting emotionally to unsubstantiated horror stories, is not critical thinking. Critical thinking should lead to the proper, scientifically sound conclusions, but the fight against misinformation and irresponsibility continues.