Control vs. conspiracy

Being a science teacher, I'm perhaps to be excused if I think that a lot of the world's problems would be significantly mitigated if everyone learned more actual science.

It wouldn't fix everything, mind you.  Even I'm not gung-ho enough to think that.  But if we all could admit that anthropogenic climate change is real, that evolution happened, that vaccines work, that scientists aren't some kind of evil cadre of conspirators who would like nothing better than to destroy the Earth -- well, it would go a long way toward making this a much saner world.

This idea is bolstered by some research that I just ran across -- although it dates to 2008, I hadn't heard about it.  Entitled "Lacking Control Increases Illusory Pattern Perception," by Jennifer Whitson and Adam Galinsky of the University of Texas, it describes research supporting the idea that when people feel confused or out of their depth, they have a tendency to see patterns that don't exist.  It's as if the mind becomes desperate to find something to hang on to, and attempts to force order from chaos.  The authors write:

Participants who lacked control were more likely to perceive a variety of illusory patterns, including seeing images in noise, forming illusory correlations in stock market information, perceiving conspiracies, and developing superstitions.  Additionally, we demonstrated that increased pattern perception has a motivational basis by measuring the need for structure directly and showing that the causal link between lack of control and illusory pattern perception is reduced by affirming the self.  Although these many disparate forms of pattern perception are typically discussed as separate phenomena, the current results suggest that there is a common motive underlying them.

Science writer Ed Yong draws a connection between this phenomenon and belief in conspiracy theories.  In his wonderful blog Not Exactly Rocket Science, Yong writes:

Obviously, the effect has both good and bad sides that should make for interesting discussions.  For a start, an ability to spot patterns isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It could be downright beneficial if it ramps up a person’s skill at spotting subtle trends that are actually real (although future studies need to test whether this actually happens). 

Even spotting false patterns could have psychological benefits if it restores a person’s sense of control, increases their confidence or even reduces their risk of depression.  Scientists, fond as we are of truth and fact, would typically argue that it’s better to get an accurate picture of the world around you.  Whitson and Galinsky agree but they also take a pragmatic stance, saying that “it may be at times adaptive [to allow] an individual to psychologically engage with rather than withdraw from their environment.” 

Of course, there are instances when making false connections can be downright damaging, especially if they’re used as the basis of bad, or even fatal, decisions.  Imagined pharmaceutical conspiracies or implications drawn about medicines from one-off anecdotes could drive people to embrace fruitless or potentially dangerous forms of alternative treatment.  People can avoid taking responsibility for, or psychologically coping with, events in their lives if they ascribe them to higher powers or sinister agencies.  And seeing too much meaning in the actions of others could lead to paranoia and severed social ties.

Which certainly supports the conjecture that belief in conspiracy theories would be stronger amongst people who feel that they have little control over their lives.  If you feel yourself to be at risk, if you think your home, family, or your entire way of life is in danger of being irreparably damaged, you begin to cast about for explanations -- because, after all, even a terrifying explanation is better than all of those bad things happening for no reason at all.  So you begin to put together pieces of information, all the while looking for a pattern.

And Whitson and Galinsky's research implies that if there is no pattern, your brain simply invents one.

See the pattern?  [image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]

It's not that I don't understand the drive people have for there to be an explanation.  The idea that bad things just happen because they happen -- that the world is so constructed that it raineth alike on the just and the unjust -- is a pretty bleak view.  

But there are a lot of things that we do understand, and that's where science education comes into play.  Whitson and Galinsky's research shows once we know more about those phenomena for which we do have an explanation, we not only make smarter decisions, but our feelings of befuddlement and confusion diminish.  We're less likely to find illusory patterns and miss the reality, or to be taken in by people who are muddying the situation because of a specific agenda (currently the case with the political attitudes toward climate change).  

It brings me back, as I have many times, to the wonderful quote by Carl Sagan: "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."  

Ten questions, ten answers

The site Today Christian posted an article a couple of days ago entitled, "10 Questions for Every Atheist."  The subtitle reads, "Some Questions Atheist [sic] Cannot Truly and Honestly REALLY Answer!  Which leads to some interesting conclusions…"  Because evidently we atheists never think about these things, and faced with questions have no choice but to say, "Golly!  I hadn't considered any of this!  I will go out and become a Christian immediately!"

Only ten, actually, but close enough.  [image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]

So in the interest of setting the record straight, I thought I'd answer them.  Not that the Today Christian people are ever likely to read my answers.  But just in case.  So here they are:

Question 1:  How did you become an atheist?

I was raised Roman Catholic, and spent the first part of my life trying like hell to believe the whole shebang.  There was (and is) something attractive about there being a Grand Pattern to it all, something bigger than myself that gives meaning and purpose to life (a topic I'll deal with more in a moment).  However, after reading the bible more than once cover-to-cover, and talking with various priests, ministers, and other true believers, I was forced to the conclusion that belief came from one of three sources: (1) I believe this because it's how I was raised; (2) I believe this because I've had a personal experience that convinced me; or (3) I believe this because I was convinced by an authority figure I trust.  None of these seemed to be acceptable reasons to commit to a belief, so I started casting about for actual evidence that any of it was true.  When I was about 28 or so I realized that there didn't seem to be any, or at least no evidence that would be acceptable to someone from outside the system.  At that point, I had no choice but to admit to myself that I was at least an agnostic, and that the complete dearth of hard evidence strongly supported atheism.

Question 2:  What happens when we die?

I don't know.  I'll find out when I get there.  Furthermore, not only do I not know, neither does anyone else, despite what they'll tell you to the contrary.  Wherever death leads, it's a one-way trip, with no possibility of sending text messages back to the ones we've left behind.

Question 3:  What if you're wrong?  And there is a heaven?  And there is a HELL!

Ah, yes, it always comes up sooner or later -- Pascal's Wager.  "I'd rather be a Christian who is wrong than an atheist who is wrong."  The problem with this is twofold.  Of all the gods humans have ever worshiped, how do you know that the Christian version is the one we need to worry about?  What if you die and find yourself in Valhalla? 

Of course, the other problem is that it's hard to conceive of a just deity who hides every shred of available evidence of his/her/its existence, creates a world full of confusion and ambiguity, and then when people come to the wrong conclusion says, "Ha ha!  You're wrong!  Into the fiery furnace with you, sucker!"  I'm not sure that such a deity would be worthy of worship in any case.

Question 4:  Without God, where do you get your morality from?

Easy.  My morality is based on doing the least harm I can and the most good I can, and continuing to learn and grow.  This sort of attitude is seen in all social species -- sharing food, taking care of family, banding together to face dangers.  So the reason I am moral is because I'm a social primate, and morality evolved to make the social structure cohere.

Question 5:  If there is no God, can we do what we want?  Are we free to murder and rape?  While good deeds are unrewarded?

Cf. my answer to question #4.  And if the only reason you're not murdering or raping is because the Big Sky Guy says no, I think you're the one whose morality needs some analysis.

Question 6:  If there is no God, how does your life have any meaning?

I create the meaning of my life.  For me, the meaning in life comes from connections with the people I care about; from learning and teaching; and from creativity.  I don't need an external source of meaning. 

Question 7:  Where did the universe come from?

Physicists are hot on the trail of this question, and current research on the topic of cosmology is tremendously exciting.  I find that people who criticize cosmology usually don't have the vaguest clue of what the physicists are actually saying, and almost never have read a single scholarly paper on the subject.  So before you start spouting nonsense like "atheists say that nothing exploded and made everything," try learning some actual science first.  Then we'll talk.

Question 8:  What about miracles?  What about all the people who claim to have a connection with Jesus? What about those who claim to have seen saints or angels?

Throughout the ages, people have claimed to be in touch with gods, demons, spirits, whatever.  I think the more pertinent question for you is: if you think that such experiences are real, what about all of the Hindus who have claimed to have an experience of Krishna?  What about the ancient Greeks who believed that they'd gotten prophecies from Apollo?  What about the Cheyenne who had vision quests in which they met, and spoke with, Coyote?  Accepting these kinds of mystical experiences as real actually creates a far bigger problem for you than it does for me.

Question 9:  What's your view of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris?

I think they are (or were, in Hitchens's case) strident because they've needed to be.  The religious model has dominated all discussion for thousands of years; in a lot of places, it's impossible to hold public office unless you are religious.  In some places, being an atheist can get you imprisoned or executed.  But because I largely agree with them about religion doesn't mean that I agree with them about everything.  They're not the Popes of Atheism, or something.  They're human, which means they'll be right about some things and wrong about others.

Question 10:  If there is no God, then why does every society have a religion?

Let me ask you a question: if the Christian god is the only real one, then why does every society have a different religion?  The things that drive religious belief -- the desire for explanations for the deep questions, fear of uncertainty, fear of death, trust in authority -- are universal to the human condition.  It's unsurprising that many societies have landed on religious explanations.  What's more puzzling is that if only one religion is true -- and it's hard to see how they could all be true, despite what some ecumenical types might claim -- why the various religions aren't at least similar.

So, there you are.  Ten questions, ten answers.  Despite the condescending attitude of the person who wrote the original post, I've tried to keep the snarkiness to a minimum and answer the questions as honestly as I can.  Like I said, it's unlikely that this post will be read by the person who asked them; my sense is that in any case, they didn't want answers, they were just hoping to be able to say "Gotcha!" and have us atheists retreat in disarray.  But if anyone who is religious does read this, and wants to discuss these points further, feel free to post a comment.  Increased understanding is, as always, the watchword around here.

Scam detection

I am asked sometimes why I care so much if people believe counterfactual nonsense.  "What's the harm?" is a frequent way the question is phrased.  "So what if folks like to check their horoscope or get a Tarot card reading every so often?  Who is it hurting?"

There are two answers to this.  First, once you've accepted one idea without requiring that it have any connection to reality, it makes it all too easy to get suckered again.  One gets in a habit of sloppy thinking -- or not thinking at all -- and the attractiveness of certain forms of woo are such that once you've started down that road, it's hard to turn back.

The second, though, is more insidious, and it is that it puts you at risk of being taken advantage of by predatory charlatans.  These are people who know damn good and well that they are liars, but are shamelessly bilking people for thousands of dollars, preying on gullibility, desperation, and grief to swell their own ill-gotten gains.

Take, for example, "psychic detectives."  These people descend like vultures on families whose loved ones have gone missing, claiming that they will gather information from The Cosmos to tell the grief-stricken whether the missing individual is dead or alive, whether there's any hope of their safe return, or (if they're dead) where the body might be found.  One session can cost $500 or more.  And driven by the loss and emptiness, together with the horrible uncertainty regarding what happened, the victims are often willing to pay.  The result?  "Psychic detectives" do a thriving business.

[image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]

So it does my heart good to see one of them get found out.  Just last week, Inside Edition reporter Lisa Guerrero did an exposé on Portland, Oregon "psychic detective" Laurie McQuary, wherein the show's producer, Charlie McLravy, hired McQuary, posing as the brother of a missing girl.  He brought along a photograph and asked McQuary what had happened to the girl.

McQuary didn't hesitate.  The girl was dead, she said.  She hated to tell him that, but she had to be honest.  Her death was violent, and involved sexual assault.  In the end, her assailant hit her in the head with a rock and killed her.

But it went further than that.  McQuary brought out a map, and told McLravy where he could find his sister's body.  "She's right here," she said.  "No more than a mile or two away."

The next day, McQuary was brought in to be interviewed by Guerrero.  Guerrero brought out the photograph, and McQuary verified that she'd spoken to the missing girl's brother, and that the girl was dead.

"You always know... if a person is dead or alive?" Guerrero asked.

"Oh, yes," McQuary answered.

"Then would you be surprised to know that this little girl is me?"

There was a moment of pure shocked silence.  Then McQuary said, her voice faltering a little, "And... um... you haven't been abducted?"

Guerrero said, "No, as you can see, I'm right here.  Can you explain this?"

McQuary said, "No, I can't."

Then Guerrero went in for the kill.  "This little girl is me, and you told him she was dead.  You're taking advantage of desperate people with a bunch of hocus-pocus, aren't you?"

McQuary said, "No, I'm not," and then got up and walked off the sound stage, trying to gather whatever shreds were left of her dignity, ending with, "This has been very interesting.  You all have a very nice day."

All in all, McLravy and Guerrero showed the photograph to ten psychic detectives -- all of whom said that Guerrero had died as a child.  Not a single one said, "Um... she's still alive, she was never abducted, and in fact, she isn't your sister.  What's going on here?"

It's not that I don't understand the pain people feel over loss.  And although I've never had a close friend or relative disappear, I can imagine how hard it is not to know the fate of someone you care about.  So I have some sympathy for the grieving family members who hire these people.

But the idea that "psychic detectives" and other such charlatans are using the pain of the grieving to bilk them out of huge sums of cash, and giving them nothing in return but a skein of lies -- that is unforgivable.  And to Guerrero and McLravy, all I can say is: touché.

Cloaking device activated

New from the "Don't We Have Worse Things To Worry About?' department, we have two astronomers from Columbia University proposing that we use a laser-based device to cloak our planet from being spotted by hostile aliens.

[image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]

In a paper in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, David Kipping and Alex Teachey suggest that it might be time to consider shielding our planet from unfriendly eyes.

"About ten years ago, it was proposed that aliens might choose to signal their presence to us not through radio waves, but by building megastructures, which would transit their star and create very weird and artificial-looking transits," Kipping said, bringing to mind the odd luminance drops discovered last year in "Tabby's Star," an anomaly that has yet to be satisfactorily explained.

Scientific luminaries as prominent as Stephen Hawking have suggested that however exciting the discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence would be, it might not be so great if the aliens came for a visit.  "We don't know much about aliens, but we know about humans," Hawking said.  "If you look at history, contact between humans and less intelligent organisms have often been disastrous from their point of view, and encounters between civilizations with advanced versus primitive technologies have gone badly for the less advanced.  A civilization reading one of our messages could be billions of years ahead of us.  If so, they will be vastly more powerful, and may not see us as any more valuable than we see bacteria."

Put even more succinctly by none other than Dave Barry, "It's all well and good for Carl Sagan to talk about how neat it would be to get in touch with aliens, but I bet he'd change his mind pronto if they actually started oozing under his front door.  I bet he'd be whapping at them with his golf clubs just like the rest of us."

Kipping says that the idea of cloaking the Earth is feasible, and wouldn't be very expensive, costing around the same in energy as seventy typical homes.  "We realized that because lasers are narrow directed beams, it was quite feasible to produce artificial transits," Kipping said.  "We then took this a step further and had the idea that one could use such a laser system to completely cloak the Earth's transit."

So that sounds okay.  But this does bring up two troubling points.

The first is that if there are intelligent life forms out there looking in our direction, they already know we're here.  Starting in the 1950s, we've been beaming radio waves into space carrying our television shows, an idea that has spawned movies as different as Starman and Galaxy Quest.  Any aliens intercepting our transmissions started with such feats of brilliance as Gilligan's Island, The Beverly Hillbillies, and (heaven help us all) Lost in Space, which means they have probably already decided that Earth's inhabitants are a bunch of complete morons.  It wouldn't surprise me to find out that we've already been the subject of a documentary on another planet entitled The Derpuloids of Dumbass-3.

So there's the problem of too little, too late.  But the more serious issue is that maybe instead of worrying about the arrival of hostile aliens, we should attend to more pressing problems.  To wit: climate change (and the fact that our leaders are largely sitting around with their fingers in their ears saying, "la-la-la-la-la, not listening" whenever a climate scientist brings up the topic).  Environmental devastation on a mammoth scale.  The increase in earthquakes directly caused by hydrofracking.  The fact that the American presidential election is increasingly looking like it will boil down to, "Which disease would you like?  Leprosy or syphilis?"

I know that installing a Romulan Cloaking Device on the Earth doesn't preclude our attending to some of these other issues, but I do worry about our attention being trained on the wrong things.  If you consider overall risk, I think that the collapse of the ice shelves, and the flooding of every coastal city on Earth -- now considered virtually inevitable -- is a little more critical than taking measures to keep away the Cardassians.

So anyway.  I'm all for SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence).  I would love nothing better than to have concrete proof that we're not alone in the universe.  But considering the vast distances we're talking about -- keep in mind that light from the nearest star takes a little over four years to get here -- I'm thinking we're safe.  Even if the aliens watched episodes of Green Acres, decided that humanity didn't deserve to live, and took off in their spaceship with planet-destroying missiles, I think we won't have anything to fret about for a long time yet.

Psychic health care fundraiser

I swear, sometimes humans are so weird that it leaves me not knowing what to think.

Take, for example, the Red Deer Regional Hospital Centre, in Red Deer, Alberta, Canada.  Like any good hospital, Red Deer is committed to excellence in patient care.  It's also like other hospitals in that there's never enough money to achieve everything they want to achieve, so they rely on volunteers, donations, and groups like the Friends of the Red Deer Regional Hospital to meet their goals.  The FRDRH says on their homepage that their vision is to "improve care and comfort to all patients and residents through selfless efforts of staff and volunteers," and their mission to "facilitate innovative fundraising programs for services and equipment to benefit patients and residents in our facilities."

Which all sounds fantastic.  So the FRDRH decided to hold a fundraiser to support their efforts, and as part of this fundraiser, hired...

... a psychic.

For a hundred dollars a pop, you can have a chat with medium Colette Baron-Reid, who bills herself as follows:

Colette Baron-Reid is an internationally acclaimed intuition expert and host of the TV show Messages From Spirit.  She’s also a bestselling inspirational author published in 27 languages, keynote speaker, recording artist, and entrepreneur. 

Vote into the Watkins List as one of the Top 100 Most Spiritually Influential People in 2013, her reputation as a noted contemporary thought leader was firmly established.  In person or on paper, Colette delivers her message of perspective and hope with her trademarked compassionate candor peppered with a pinch of infectious personality.

All righty, then.

So we have a fundraiser for promoting cutting-edge, evidence-based health care that involves paying lots of money to have a woman tell you she can get in touch with your dead relatives, and that Aunt Bertha is just having a jolly old time in heaven.

Which brings up a question I've always had.  When the mediums do their shtick, why do they never find that your dead relatives are in hell?  I know that given some of the people in my family, it seems pretty likely.  We always get told that Grandpa Albert is happy and wishes all of us people down here on Earth the best, but we never get messages like, "Grandpa Albert says to tell you, "DEAR GOD GET ME OUT OF HERE SATAN JUST SENT A CRAZED WEASEL TO CHEW OFF MY FEET."

Which, now that I think about it, could be kind of entertaining.  Maybe I should start my own business as a medium, specializing on getting in touch with people who are in hell.  It'd be fun to tell people, "Uncle Steve says the Lake of Eternal Fire is kind of toasty this time of year.  He also said to tell you, 'Satan said to say "see you next Thursday."'  Do you know what all that's about?"

But I digress.

[image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]

I can't argue with a charity event that raises money for a needy hospital, but for cryin' in the sink, why couldn't they have found a better way to do it?  Hire a magician.  At least with a magician, no one's pretending that what they do is real.

Anyhow, if you're in Red Deer, Alberta on April 9, and have $100 to throw away, you might want to consider attending.  I'm always curious about how these hucksters ply their trade, and would love to hear a report.  And at least you'll have the comfort of knowing that your money is going to a good cause, and not to the medium's downpayment on her next crystal ball.

The Soldiers of Christ Bill

In a time when partisan rhetoric, hate-mongering, misogyny, and xenophobia are the Flavors of the Month, the Mississippi House of Representatives just passed a bill that is horrifying even by comparison to what's come before.

House Bill 786, the "Mississippi Church Protection Act," makes it legal to kill someone if you do it while you're acting as a participant in a church service or as a place of worship's "security team."

Here's the relevant section of the bill:

The governing body of any church or place of worship may establish a security program by which designated members are authorized to carry firearms for the protection of the congregation of such church or place of worship, including resisting any unlawful attempt to kill a member(s) or attendee(s) of such church or place of worship, or to commit any felony upon any such member or attendee in the church or place of worship or in the immediate premises thereof.  Any church or place of worship that establishes a security program that meets the requirements of subsection (2) of this section and any participant of such security program shall be immune from civil liability for any action taken by a member of such security program, if such action occurs during the course and scope of the member's performance of their official duties as a member of the security program for the church or place of worship.

Does anyone else see the problem with this?  It's saying that an unregulated and untrained individual, simply by being a member of a church's "security team," is being given carte blanche to kill a person, based on their judgment regarding whether the person was committing a felony.

[image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]

If that doesn't freak you out sufficiently, maybe the fact that both the bill's supporters and detractors are calling it the "Soldiers of Christ Bill" will do the trick.

Matt Agorist, over at the Free Thought Project, stated it clearly:

By passing this bill, the state of Mississippi effectively recognizes churches as their own sovereign entities — mini-states that are tax-free and immune from their acts of violence carried out in their official duties.

Larry T. Decker, Executive Director of the Secular Coalition for America, concurs:

The "Mississippi Church of Protection Act" is well deserving of the title for "Worst State Bill."  This legislation would put "soldiers of God" above the law, allowing them to act as judge, jury, and executioner.  Religious institutions are already exempt from taxation, financial transparency, and many civil rights laws.  The Mississippi Church Protection Act would constitute an unprecedented and dangerous next step.  Belonging to a church should not afford anyone the same rights and protections as law enforcement.  This legislation emboldens extremists by creating a legal means for radical preachers to enlist their congregants into "God’s army."

Sean Tindell, one of the 85 Representatives who voted for the bill (33 voted against), disagreed.  He said, "The self-defense of these churches is a God-given right...  this legislation will protect the church body."

He did not comment on why churches should receive special protection via this act, and why the same claims couldn't be made for business, schools, and so on.

Interestingly, the Mississippi Police Chiefs' Association is strongly against the bill.  The MPCA's Executive Director, Ken Winter, said in an interview:

By effectively dismantling Mississippi's licensing system, this bill would block law enforcement who stop an armed suspect from confirming that he isn't a violent criminal, severely mentally ill or otherwise dangerous.  We just don't believe that it's a good idea for people to be carrying concealed weapons and not have participated in any training.

The whole thing reinforces the fact that there is a significant proportion of Americans who still think that churches should be above the law -- or, at least, not subject to the same laws the rest of us are.

It's high time we take a good hard look at the nationwide policy of treating churches as if they are nations-within-a-nation -- subject to their own rules, exempt from taxation, and largely protected by their own leaders from prosecution when laws are broken.  It's long overdue for "it's my religion" to stop being some kind of universal Get Out Of Jail Free card.  But unfortunately, with the passage of House Bill 786, we've taken a large step backwards into a time more like the Middle Ages -- when the religious authority and the secular authority were considered coequal.

And if you don't see where that can lead, you haven't studied enough history.

A win for anti-woo

I so often write about topics that make me (and at least some of my readers) want to do repeated headdesks that it's nice to have an opportunity to write about something where the good guys came out ahead.

I'm referring to the decision by Robert DeNiro, co-founder of the Tribeca Film Festival, to pull anti-vaxxer Andrew Wakefield's film Vaxxed from being shown at the festival.  DeNiro said:

My intent in screening this film was to provide an opportunity for conversation around an issue that is deeply personal to me and my family.  But after reviewing it over the past few days with the Tribeca Film Festival team and others from the scientific community, we do not believe it contributes to or furthers the discussion I had hoped for. 

The Festival doesn’t seek to avoid or shy away from controversy.  However, we have concerns with certain things in this film that we feel prevent us from presenting it in the Festival program.  We have decided to remove it from our schedule.

Given that the premise of the film is antiscientific horseshit, I and other folks who value evidence and logic over hysteria and misinformation applaud his decision.  Said David Gorski, over at Respectful Insolence:

Freedom of speech means that Andrew Wakefield and anyone he’s conned “persuaded” into believing his pseudoscience can make whatever sort of propaganda film they want, provided they can find the resources to do so.  It also means that the Tribeca Film Festival can screen that same pseudoscientific antivaccine (but I repeat myself) propaganda film if its organizers so desire.  However, it also means that journalists and, yes, bloggers can criticize Tribeca for its decision, refute Andrew Wakefield’s long history of promoting antivaccine misinformation about the MMR, and pre-emptively demolish the conspiracy theory at the heart of Vaxxed.  That’s not “censorship.”  It’s just more speech.

Which is it exactly.  But given that it's conspiracy theories that started the anti-vaxxer movement in the first place, it's not to be wondered at that DeNiro's decision immediately unleashed a screeching horde of anti-vaxxers who claim that Big Pharma had threatened DeNiro into pulling the film.  Even less surprising is that the charge was led by none other than Mike "The Health Ranger" Adams, of Natural News:

To try to strong-arm De Niro into pulling the film, intense shaming pressure was brought to bear against Robert De Niro by the vaccine totalitarians, who told De Niro this documentary was so dangerous that no one should ever be allowed to see it.  Vaccine safety, they insist, can’t even be allowed to be DEBATED, they insist!  Only one side of the debate may be seen by the public, and that one side must be the 100% pro-vaccine side which ridiculously claims that “the science is settled” even when no one is allowed to see the science they don’t want you to see.

"The science they don't want you to see."  Better known as "discredited studies that have been replicated over and over with no results."

Of course, Adams defines "science" as "whatever agrees with my preconceived notions," so this is a distinction I wouldn't expect him to make.

But he's not done with his ranting yet:

De Niro discovered that even declaring yourself to be pro-vaccine isn’t enough to appease the vaccine totalitarians.  The mere granting of any public platform to this explosive document is very nearly a crime in the eyes of the corrupt, fraudulent vaccine industry and all its arrogant zealots. 

As more pressure was brought against De Niro for defending the free speech of what might be one of the single most important documentaries of our modern age, he caved.  He pulled the film from Tribeca, participating in the censorship that was demanded by the vaccine totalitarians.  The film’s page on Tribeca was also memory holed — it used to be found at this link — and De Niro felt compelled to issue a follow-up statement today that appeases the demands of the vaccine fundamentalists.

"Vaccine fundamentalists."  Or, as the rest of the world calls them, "medical researchers."

[image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]

It would take a stronger man than I am not to indulge in a little bit of schadenfreude over Adams's apoplectic rage.  Too often the decision goes the other way -- indulging the anti-science types because they tend to shriek the loudest.  The fact that DeNiro has swayed in the other direction should be heartening.  DeNiro has an autistic son himself, and has gone on record as indulging in some sympathy toward the anti-vaxx movement -- showing that dealing with difficult situations can lead people in either direction, toward considering evidence-based solutions or gravitating to irrational ideas out of desperation.  Not being in his shoes, I can't imagine what it's like, but it's a positive sign that he's taken a step toward rationality.

Of course, Adams isn't gonna see it that way.  To him, it's just one more Big Pharma conspiracy.  To which I say: give it a rest, dude.  The good guys won this time.