There's a Facebook page called The Vaccination Station and it's doing god's work. Instead of belittling anti-vaxxers, they are trying to show that immunization works.
"This is a pro-vaxx page sharing information about all aspects of vaccination. Questions are welcome, but unsubstantiated claims will be treated with the scepticism they deserve. If you want to disagree, bring science and evidence," The Vaccination Station introduced itself.
After gathering information from reputable professionals qualified in relevant fields, the page presents it with comprehensible posters. Not everyone has the patience or the time to read scientific papers, so this format is perfect not only for convincing anti-vaxxers to change their minds, but to prepare those who might meet them as well.
More info: Facebook
“I am deeply concerned by the resurgence of the modern anti-vaxx movement and its negative impact on public health; an impact which can be traced directly (though not exclusively) to Andrew Wakefield’s fraudulent MMR study of 1998,” the man behind The Vaccination Station, Dave, told Bored Panda. “I want to demystify vaccination by explaining it in terms that anyone can understand.”
Throughout his life, Dave has met only met a few anti-vaxxers in the real world. “Most of them were personal friends who have since cut me off. Discussions about vaccines did not go well; they simply refused to listen.” However, many have reached out to him via social media. “I am regularly accused of being a paid shill for the pharmaceutical industry,” he said. “One person even said I must be a bot! The truth is that I’m just a regular dad with a Facebook page that I manage by myself, with no funding from anyone.”
While working on the project, Dave has learned quite a few things. “Firstly, anti-vaxx propaganda must be engaged & refuted at its primary source: social media. The influence of the ‘post-truth’ era has sadly eroded public confidence in professional expertise. Furthermore, there is an urgent need to teach & promote critical thinking skills such as logic & deductive reasoning.”
“Scientific consensus is based on strength of evidence, not volume of voices,” he added. “No amount of sincere belief will change facts that are inconvenient to your worldview.”