They are citing ONS figures of excess deaths as proof the vaccines are killing people. I tried to explain that not being able to get a doctor’s appointment, staying home and getting fat, etc explain the figures (official sources have said it too) but they said it’s “gaslighting” and then said their family doctor wouldn’t get the vaccine.
“If you think the world’s top scientists are trying to kill you, then why would you listen to any expert about anything? They’ll save you from yourself when you’re wrong anyway. Would you do the same for them? That’s why they’re trustworthy, and you and your sources are not.”
Seriously. Take your car to a baker next time you have trouble.
“Bye.”
Then leave and stay gone.
Not everything requires a response and at some point you have to pick your battles. They have revealed to you that they are an idiot. It is not your job to fix them.
Seriously, I’ve had multiple conversations with my BIL where he comes over to me and says something insane, and my response is just “huh okayyy…” and I walk away without saying anything else. I don’t care to be polite anymore.
Sometimes the best response is no response at all. Silence can be deafening.
I’m often a dick. I probably wouldn’t say anything immediately, and then use that asinine opinion to dismiss anything else the person says later. Forever. They say something about <whatever topic>, “Yeah, but you also think vaccines kill people, so we already know you are an idiot.” Just on repeat on every opinion they voice, until they never want to say anything around me or talk to me.
Yup. This is the answer.
It depends on how invested you are in their health. I wouldn’t do that to my mother, for instance.
Tell them that you’re a sheeple, and got the safe dose of the vaccine, since they want to keep the compliant people around. Tell them it’s too bad they’re on “the list” of bad people.
I generally reframe it from a perspective even they think they understand: Money.
Governments want their money. Less Population = Less Taxes for them to take, ergo, no government is trying to lower their population. And do they, the audience, think that the government is willing to have less money?
I don’t think so!
“How to speak to a vaccine sceptic: research reveals what works Hesitancy about vaccinations is on the rise, but studies show there are specific ways to address people’s questions.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01771-z
Optimistic, but a start maybe.
In summary of the nature article:
Listen and be interested in why they hold those opinions, use motivational interviewing techniques (I explain this as Inception, trying to get the patient to have the ideas) and provide solid evidence, be realistic about data and certainty, ie the MMR vaccine is safe (and doesn’t cause autism) the COVID vaccine has less data as it’s newer, but it is still safer for the vast majority of people than COVID.
Maybe not the answer you’re looking for, but I have an uncle like that.
I suggest going no contact if you can.
Reason being, they don’t care about facts, nothing you say will convince them.
Tell them that’s completely true, and that if they keeps spreading the truth the black vans will come for them, they know too much.
The birds have already heard the rumors, and the clock is ticking. They better do something and shut up before they end up in “the facility”.
“If that were true, I’d be trying even harder to make you take it.”
If you think they’d be open to it, try Bayes’ theorem. Ask them to give percent likelihoods for the following:
A. The odds that the government (or whoever) is trying to kill everyone, before taking the evidence of excess deaths into account
B. The odds of seeing excess deaths for any possible reason, not just their conspiracy hypothesis
C. The odds of seeing excess deaths if the conspiracy hypothesis were true.Then logically, the odds of the conspiracy being real given the excess deaths should be A*C/B. If you disagree on the outcome, you must disagree on one or more of the assumptions (probably A—if it’s B, you can find the objective odds by checking historical data).
If you still disagree on the prior assumption (A), you can set aside the excess deaths argument and ask what other evidence led them to form that prior assumption. Then you can repeat the process until you either reach agreement or they’re left with an assumption they have no evidence for.
…You are asking people who… willfully choose to be idiots to… do science?
I mean, you do you, but at the point someone is willing to believe “the top scientists in the world are trying to get you killed” you might as well consider them lost, as they are ignoring elementary-level statistics.
You can’t use logic to talk someone out of a position they didn’t use logic to get into in the first place
Well, not with that attitude.
They don’t need a vaccine to depopulate when heart disease(695k/y), car accidents(40k/y), overdoses(82k/y), abortion(1m/y), and suicide(49k/y) kill far more people than the vaccine could possibly be linked to the COVID vaccines(8k in total).
Don’t at me for including abortion, I support abortion access and want it to be a free service, but we are talking about depopulation means and abortion is a means to depopulate.
A pregnancy is not a person to count. That’s anti-abortion rhetoric.
The question is: does it make sense for the government to ban abortions, just to kill ppl with vaccines on the other hand?
You can’t logic someone out of something they didn’t logic themselves into, and they definitely got emotionally attached to antivax before they found “statistics” to back shit up.
This is the answer.
You can’t reason someone out of an unreasonable position.
The only response is to ask them what evidence they would require to change their position.
They’ll inevitably reveal that their assertions are merely beliefs because it’s not practically possible to prove nor disprove them.
IIRC there was a study where people with strong opinions talked to an Al and the process changed their minds.
Durably reducing conspiracy beliefs through dialogues with AI https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adq1814
