According to a New Study, Nothing Can Change an Anti-Vaxxer’s Mind

[HuckleB]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/03/03/effective_messages_in_vaccine_promotion_when_it_comes_to_anti_vaxxers_there.html

"While some false beliefs, such as astrology, are fairly harmless, parents who believe falsely that vaccination is dangerous or unnecessary for children present a real public health hazard. That's why researchers, publishing in Pediatrics, decided to test four different pro-vaccination messages on a group of parents with children under 18 and with a variety of attitudes about vaccination to see which one was most persuasive in persuading them to vaccinate. As Chris Mooney reports for Mother Jones, the results are utterly demoralizing: Nothing made anti-vaccination parents more amendable to vaccinating their kids. At best, the messages didn't move the needle one way or another, but it seems the harder you try to persuade a vaccination denialist to see the light, the more stubborn they get about not vaccinating their kids.

...

In other words, learning that they were wrong to believe that vaccines were dangerous to their kids made vaccine-hostile parents more, not less likely to reject vaccination. Mooney calls this the "backfire effect," but feel free to regard it as stubborn, childish defensiveness, if you'd rather. If you produce evidence that vaccination fears about autism are misplaced, anti-vaccination parents don't apologize and slink off to get their kids vaccinated. No, according to this study, they tend to double down.

This reaction, where people become more assured of their stupid opinions when confronted with factual or scientific evidence proving them wrong, has been demonstrated in similar studies time and time again. (This is why arguing with your Facebook friends who watch Fox News will only bring you migraines.) Mooney suggests that state governments should respond by making it harder to opt out of vaccinations. That would be helpful, but there's also some preliminary research from the James Randi Educational Foundation and Women Thinking Inc. that shows that reframing the argument in positive terms can help. When parents were prompted to think of vaccination as one of the steps you take to protect a child, like buckling a seat belt, they were more invested in doing it than if they were reminded that vaccine denialists are spouting misinformation. Hopefully, future research into pro-vaccination messaging, as opposed to just anti-anti-vaccination messaging, will provide further insight."



Ummm. Yeah, that's about all I can offer.

[Rex]

1. Sounds like this...

[HuckleB]

2. Indeed! -eom-

[Common Sense Party]

3. Not true. I used to be, if not an ANTI-vaxxer, I was a vaccine skeptic.

You have to understand the fear and bewilderment that seize hold of the mind of a parent whose child is severely autistic. You want a cure desperately, and when you see there is no cure, you want to find out what the cause is. And every other month some half-baked study or paper gets published that has some suggestion of what MIGHT have caused your child to stop speaking and interacting around age 2.

You'll grasp at anything.

So, yes, for a while I was very concerned about the MMR shot. I made the doctor order them as separate shots for our third child, having "heard" that lumping all three together was too much. I never thought that vaccines were bad or that people should not vaccinate their children, but I was concerned about the potency of some shots.

It took me a while, and some more reading and looking at evidence and...finally...some perspective and acceptance that it is what it is and our son's never going to speak and I'll probably never know why...and I finally came to accept that it wasn't the vaccines.

[Blanks]

9. Do you have Proloquo2go?

[Common Sense Party]

15. He uses it at school, but he's not very interested in it. nt

[Blanks]

21. My daughter is severely autistic...

Self-injurious and non-verbal. She's 19 now, but she is still in school.

We bought Proloquo2go for her 2 years ago and put it on an iPhone 3 with no phone service.

The school district was not encouraging her to use it at school - so most of the 'language' that she does have, I taught her.

I typically show her something and then use her finger to select that item so that she knows what it is - in case she wants to ask for it later.

They wanted to use an iPad, and I told them at the time - that would not be practical to carry around. Finally, the school district sent the speech pathologist to the training and now they work on it with her some at school.

Before we provided her with the 'device' she would use a flyer to point to the things she wanted (much like the PECs). She wasn't able to communicate about anything that wasn't in her hands.

It has really given her a voice. I think that one license can be installed onto up to 10 devices. I have it installed on my iPhone and my wife's so that if she doesn't have hers handy (or the battery is dead) she can still tell us what she wants (which is mostly what it is used for, we don't really 'talk').

It moves our lives just a little bit closer to normal. The software is kind of expensive ($189, I believe), but it's been worth it to us.

[1awake]

13. Your story is fairly normal as far

as my experiences with people who are anti-vaxxer. normally... its based on something that has already happened and they are trying desperately to find an answer to make sense of it. I dunno if that is the norm, just what I have seen, and its completely sad.

[Common Sense Party]

16. Yeah, I don't know if it's the norm, either. But to categorically say that

someone who is concerned about vaccines will never change his or her mind...I'm sure there are many of us out here.

[3catwoman3]

4. I can usually tell...

...by about 3 or 4 sentences into an immunization discussion, ir I stand the proverbial snowball's chance of making any headway with a vaccine reluctant parent. There is a great difference between parents who come in with legitimate questions, and those who come in with their minds already made up and their mental arms firmly folded across their chests.

A few years back, I frequently saw a family with 3 little girls. At the 18 month visit for the youngest child, the parents announced that they would not be agreeing to any further immunizations. This was rather puzzling, as the first two had been given all the usual protections, and so had the youngest, up to that point. When I inquired as to what had prompted this change of heart, I was told that their church told them that immunizing was polluting God's perfect creations (or words to that effect). I knew right then and there that I wasn't going to be able to come up with any persuasive argument.

The family went on to have two little boys, and remained firm in their stance against immunization. One afternoon, one of my colleagues, who is a very kind soul, was examining the youngest boy for a well visit. She spoke politely but quite firmly with the mother about the potential risks of not vaccinating. When I went to leave at the end of the day, one of the nursing staff said, "Mrs. X is waiting for you in the parking lot." Sure enough, her van was parked right beside my car. No way to pretend I didn't see her.

She sobbed as she told me that she preferred to immunize her children, but their church was one of those "the man is the had of the household" types, and HE had declared that the children would not be immunized. I felt terrible for her, but there was not really anything I could do.

The family continued to come to practice for a while. One of the last times i saw them, the eldest daughter, who was 7 at the time, sneezed in the middle of the office visit. She happily announced, "God must have wanted me to sneeze."
I typically keep my mouth tightly shut about religious matters when on the job, but was unable to let that pass. As gently as I could, I said, "I think God might have bigger decisions than that to worry about." (Not really what I wanted to say, but that was as far as I dared to go.)

Exactly like Nye versus Ham.

[stevenleser]

67. Sounds like there is a big difference between as some folks have called them a vaccine-skeptic vs

someone who is vaccine-phobic.

Vaccine Skeptics seem to be potentially reachable while vaccine-phobic types are not.

The study seems to address the latter.

[ZombieHorde]

5. This isn't just anti-vaccine.

This is lots of things. I think we would all do well to not consider ourselves above this behavior.

[villager]

6. +1

n/t

[HuckleB]

10. Exactly. -eom-

[La Lioness Priyanka]

40. yup.

[Deep13]

7. They're immunized (cue rimshot) against contrary information. nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

42. LOL. nt

[Crunchy Frog]

8. It doesn't sound like the study shows any such thing.

It seems to show that the four different messages that they tried were ineffective, and maybe, more generally, that telling someone how wrong and stupid they are is not necessarily the most effective means of persuasion.

[HuckleB]

11. Or they just are not open to actual information.

Hmm.

[Crunchy Frog]

20. .

there's also some preliminary research from the James Randi Educational Foundation and Women Thinking Inc. that shows that reframing the argument in positive terms can help. When parents were prompted to think of vaccination as one of the steps you take to protect a child, like buckling a seat belt, they were more invested in doing it than if they were reminded that vaccine denialists are spouting misinformation. Hopefully, future research into pro-vaccination messaging, as opposed to just anti-anti-vaccination messaging, will provide further insight."

Your post title is actually contradicted by the content of what you posted. It appears that the way in which information is presented can impact the way it is recieved, but some people simply don't wish to explore that avenue. Maybe the "anti-vaxers" are not the only ones who "just are not open to new information".

[HuckleB]

24. You do understand what the term "preliminary research" means, right?

Oh, wait.

[Crunchy Frog]

27. Yes I do.

And I would bet that there's alot more of it than just that coming from the Randi Foundation. Tayloring message to audience is kind of the foundation of advertising. I would guess that messaging effectiveness research is well established, but maybe the official battlers of "woo" are not up on it, being already convinced that the only way to communicate their message is by beating people over the head with how stupid and wrong they are.

I'm encouraged that they're at least beginning to explore other possible approaches. It sounds like you've already made up your mind on the subject, though.

[HuckleB]

30. No, I haven't.

I just think it's funny that you're attempting to address this critically, when you don't do that on many other matters of science.

[Crunchy Frog]

36. Lol! You have no idea what my knowledge or opinions

of anything science related are. You think you do because of your gross overinterpretations of a tiny handful of posts of mine that you've seen. Tiny amount of information and you already know that your conclusions are factual. Very scientific.

I will bow out of your thread and leave you to your cheerleading section.

[HuckleB]

37. Actually, I do.

For example, you blindly "liked" the OP that pushes the usual crap propaganda, and is shown to be ludicrous in the link found in this response.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/114211611#post20

This is not the first time you've gone down such a road without the slightest concern or question.

Now, please cut the crap.

[Crunchy Frog]

47. Wow. You're stalking my recs

In order to know what my beliefs are. I don't think that I've experienced that kind of fandom before. I'm flattered, I think.

Yes, I do find Monsanto to be questionable, and I also have some questions about gluten intolerance, since my sons appear to have it. I think it's worthwhile to ask questions, though I draw no conclusions. I also know that those sorts of threads piss off certain people and I will sometimes rec them for that reason alone.

So, as I've said, I'm kind of flattered that I've attracted some fandom/stalkerdom on the basis of a handful of thread recs. I'm also very impressed that you can deduce my entire scientific worldview on the basis of these recs. I think you'd just about qualify for a job as a psychic detective.

Well, it's been lovely and enlightening to have this little discussion with you.

[HuckleB]

49. Wow! You're making baseless assumptions.

Your name comes up in support of anti-science BS all the time.

I had posted on that link, and noted that you don't think as critically as you pretend to do. Monsanto isn't even the issue, but yet you bring up that particular company as a defense for your mindless recommendation. Hmm.

I'm sorry to call you out, but it's not like it wasn't justified.

[Crunchy Frog]

54. Likewise.

To baseless assumptions.

Hope you can get that job as a psychic detective. It's a shame for that kind of talent to go to waste.

[HuckleB]

56. Awwww. I'm sorry that intellectual honestly is not your thing.

Bummer for you.

[Crunchy Frog]

58. Likewise.

We can commiserate together.

[HuckleB]

59. Derp.

Boring.

[Crunchy Frog]

60. I don't think my intellect is up to addressing this final argument of yours.

I think you've got the last word in this discussion.

[HuckleB]

61. You've offered intellect?

When?

[Crunchy Frog]

62. Well certainly nothing to match the caliber of "derp".

[HuckleB]

63. Ah, so you've offered nothing.

Those who think already knew that.

Why do you bother? I mean, seriously. You do realize that you've been exposed to anyone who is actually worth the time of day. Right?

LOL!

[chrisa]

12. All woo secures itself by demanding it's believers cut themselves off from reality.

All debunking information is propaganda by (Big-Pharma, the Government, the NWO, a scientific conspiracy, paid shills, etc.). The only ones to be believed are the woo peddlers.

[redqueen]

14. I heard a little discussion about this on NPR.

Ego is such a huge stumbling block.

[sakabatou]

17. Same with some creationists

[WilliamPitt]

18. The Panic Virus, by Seth Mnookin

http://www.amazon.com/The-Panic-Virus-Vaccine-Autism-Controversy/dp/1439158657



...is by far and away the best book available on this phenomenon. Interestingly enough, I went K through twelfth grade with Mnookin. Brilliant guy.

[HuckleB]

25. +1

Great book, indeed.

[Blanks]

19. There is a large group of people that don't trust big pharma...

And they don't trust the government. So when the government is behind a program that benefits big pharma - they are doubly suspicious.

Unfortunately, what I'm seeing more of on Facebook is that they don't trust university studies either because that's government too, and they have an agenda. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh however are just agendaless freedom loving patriots that would never do anything to deceive them.



I was in a rather lengthy discussion here at DU because I hold the position that they never should have allowed mercury anywhere near childhood vaccinations and there were some folks who thought I was anti-vaccine. We got our kids their shots, but while looking through the government web sites - during the discussion - about the correlation between the shots with the mercury based preservative - there was a small discrepancy between how the EPA, the CDC and the FDA reported on the results of the behavioral studies (I don't remember which agency differed from the other two). I don't believe that there's some kind of a huge conspiracy, but at the same time - they (the government) were one of parties encouraging vaccines with the mercury based preservative, and I can understand their desire to sweep it under the rug. A lot of sites specifically say "there were no studies linking autism to vaccines containing the mercury based preservative" that almost looks like: we were concerned that there might be one if we kept studying it, so we stopped studying it, and we stopped using it so it couldn't continue to be studied. I suppose any more 'conspiracy talk' and I need to get on over to the conspiracy forum.

I got a flu shot once (over 30 years ago) and I got sicker than a dog. I'm familiar with the history and mechanisms for how vaccines work, but I was a little suspicious at that time (I was in the army and a lot of people in the unit got sick that received the shot). I don't think I've gotten a flu shot since, but if there were serious warnings - you can bet your ass I'd get one. The science is good and the results are undeniable.

I never believed there was any possibility that the vaccines themselves were contributing to autism, but since they discontinued the preservative (in childhood vaccines) and autism rates are still on the rise - the correlation is shaky at best.

[jeff47]

23. Problem with your theory

The mercury-based preservative is still in use for childhood vaccines. In Africa. It solves the lack-of-refrigeration problem.

If the preservative was as dangerous as you feared, there should be a lots more problems in Africa.

we were concerned that there might be one if we kept studying it, so we stopped studying it, and we stopped using it so it couldn't continue to be studied.

They have something far better than a study. Real-world results. Where's the massive vaccine-induced diseases in Africa? There should be a massive number of damaged children if the preservative was dangerous.

Not all mercury compounds are created equal. Some are dangerous, some are not. The form of mercury that is used in the vaccine preservative is quickly filtered out by the kidneys. The form of mercury that causes disease is not - it remains in the body to cause damage.

[Blanks]

29. As dangerous as I feared?

That's kind of over-stating my concern. I see they are still using thimerosal in other places in the world as well (Argentina) and have conducted additional studies on the preservative - reporting that mercury levels do not rise in the subject after being exposed to the shot.

You probably know more about it than I do. One of the side-effects of over-exposure to mercury is kidney damage. What if someone has been exposed to a lot of mercury through diet or high concentrations of mercury in the air, and then they receive a dose - what happens if the kidney is compromised? How does the body process it if the kidney can't immediately get it out of the body?

It's interesting to me that in this page from the WHO:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs361/en/

It points out that mercury is to be avoided in no uncertain terms. Dangerous, dangerous stuff.

Even minute amounts are dangerous except...
thimerosal - it's not dangerous at all.

I realize it is in a different chemical form than the DANGEROUS stuff, but it is used as a preservative because it is so effective at not allowing things to live. Kind of like pesticides. There are also a lot of people allergic to it, and there are recent studies evaluating the link between autoimmune and autism.

I've never really believed that there was a connection between thimerosal and autism, but the more people jump all up in my shit when I bring it up in conversation - it kind of makes me wonder if someone isn't hiding something.

I'm just kidding (except on the autoimmune study - that's pregnant women and not related to childhood vaccines), but folks seem a little aggressive when I bring it up. I was even kind of kidding when I made the statement that you have excerpted.

I suppose it's to be expected because there are people so 'out there' about it, but I do think its interesting - all the best conspiracies are.

[jeff47]

35. We don't have to play "what-if"

What if someone has been exposed to a lot of mercury through diet or high concentrations of mercury in the air, and then they receive a dose - what happens if the kidney is compromised? How does the body process it if the kidney can't immediately get it out of the body?

We don't have to play "what-if". Because it's in active use in several places around the world. The conditions you fear would have arisen - especially with the terrible environmental conditions in the same places that still use thimerosal.

So we'd have actual dead or injured people, instead of guessing "what if".

It points out that mercury is to be avoided in no uncertain terms. Dangerous, dangerous stuff.

If a run-of-the-mill person comes across something with mercury in it, and they realize there is mercury in it, then the raw quantity makes it dangerous. Additionally, that run-of-the-mill person will not be able to do the chemical analysis to determine if it's a relatively safe or dangerous compound.

Just like a run-of-the-mill person should not consume as much acetaminophen as they want. It's dangerous in quantity, even though small amounts are given to infants. (It's Tylenol).

I suppose it's to be expected because there are people so 'out there' about it, but I do think its interesting - all the best conspiracies are.

If you're calling it a conspiracy, then you're part of the problem. Whether or not you truly believe it, you are catapulting the propaganda.

[DanTex]

22. I've also seen studies to this effect about global warming and creationism.

[HuckleB]

26. I'm guessing it would hold true for most anti-science positions.

Of course, we know the worth of a guess.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

28. I'm not against vaccines. I am mistrustful of pharma companies

I want oversight into what pharma companies do.

[HuckleB]

31. There's far more oversight there than in most areas.

And vaccines have a vast amount of oversight. Thus, I'm not sure what your statement even means.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

33. Pharmaceutical companies are notorious for their misdeeds. nt

[HuckleB]

38. That's your response?

A meaningless cliche? Do you have any point at all?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

39. What, do you need me to list their misdeeds (which you already know anyhow)?

It's not as if you didn't live on planet earth.

[HuckleB]

41. In other words, you have no actual concerns about vaccines, but...

you have some weird need to spill meaningless cliches on a board about them.

Got it.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

43. Oh good grief. I already said I'm not against vaccines per se, but against pharma companies

They live only for profits, and care not one iota how it hurts the health of their customers.

[HuckleB]

45. Yes, you've repeated that pointless cliche.

It's still serves no good purpose. If you want to say, "Good grief." Ask yourself why you're posting meaningless responses. Yes, in other words, look in the mirror.

If you're not against vaccines, why bother with the pointless, meaningless and repeated nonsense? It serves no purpose, whatsoever.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

46. It is a cliche to you. It's reality to me. I don't trust pharma corporations nt

[HuckleB]

50. It's a preconceived notion to you.

And, interestingly, it's not one that you can actually support in any way, shape or form.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

52. No, it isn't. It's something I've witnessed and read about in depth. nt

[HuckleB]

53. Derp.

[aikoaiko]

66. And the jury results are in...

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Wed Mar 5, 2014, 06:56 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Derp.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4607171

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

I vaccinate my kids and feel strongly about that, so I'm on HuckleB's side of this, but responding to posters with "derp" is rude and disruptive, and he's done it twice in this thread so far. He's developed a bullying style and seems to start these threads to entice people to bully. I think a hide might send a message to talk about vaccines and other science issues in a less disruptive way.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Mar 5, 2014, 07:04 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's a childish response , but not his worthy IMO
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: While "Derp" may not be the most enlightened response, it is hardly worth hiding. It may be preferable for the alerter to simply walk away from this discussion.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Again, knee-jerk reaction from someone who may not have thought out their post. It's not offensive. It's just not thought out.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: derp
A simple, undefined reply when an ignorant comment or action is made. Brought to life in the South Park series, when Mr. Derp made a guest apperance at South Park Elementary as the chef for a day, followed by hitting himself in the head with a hammer and exclaiming "Derp!"

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Aristus]

32. Yeah, I had one of those howling religious fanatics in my exam room once, bringing his poor

child, who didn't deserve such a fucked-up parent, screaming at me that he was not going to allow his child to get immunized.

It took a superhuman level of restraint to refrain from drop-kicking his stupid ass out of the room...

[xchrom]

34. du rec.

[Auntie Bush]

44. Same thing with trying to make ReThugs believe in C limate Change. Just makes them honker down.

[hughee99]

48. Yes, but according to Anti-vaxxers, you can't trust most studies. n/t

[Warpy]

51. That's why public health laws mandate vaccination for public school attendance

Crackpots have existed since the vaccines were first developed and only the power of the law could make them comply so that half their children wouldn't die before the age of five.

Opt outs have gotten out of control. Public health laws need to be strengthened, especially in California where parents can seemingly opt out because it's Tuesday.

Vaccines save lives. While adults can take their own risks, children need to be protected. Not getting the kids vaccinated is neglect.

It also threatens those few kids who can't be vaccinated due to allergies or chemotherapy.

It would help to put Wakefield into prison for fraud. It's where he belongs.

[pnwmom]

55. People forget that the vaccine safety movement sprang up in connection with the old DPT vaccine,

a "whole cell vaccine" that was implicated in enough deaths and serious injuries that Congress set up the Vaccine Court, so that injured children could be compensated (although the Court made very few awards). Eventually, in response to public pressure, the safer "split cell" vaccine was developed, that didn't come with the same risks.

But decades earlier, my healthy 6th month old sister had a half dose of DPT vaccine because the kids in our family had always had such bad reactions. She developed encephalitis and died the next day. And even earlier than that, one of my mother's cousins died the day after a vaccine and the other was permanently paralyzed. The doctors then thought it was the diphtheria part of the vaccine that had hurt them, and that they must have had a dose from a "bad batch," but in retrospect, it was probably the pertussis. In my children's generation of cousins, my son had seizures for a week, and my niece had a temperature above 105, before the pediatricians decided to withhold the pertussis vaccine from all the cousins.

Now, thanks to the pressure brought to bear by concerned parents and injured families, a safer DPT vaccine is available. When my granddaughter was born, I volunteered myself as the first guinea pig. The effect was similar to a flu vaccine. Then all three young adult children had it, including the son who had had seizures. No problem.

I'm not anti-vaccine. I'm pro safe vaccines. There's a difference.

[HuckleB]

57. FFS.

You just couldn't resist pushing your usual memes. (And I've already shown the lazy recommendation of BS by one poster on this thread. Should I show another?_

[pnwmom]

64. Your OP was nothing but your usual meme. What else do you ever talk about?

You have never shown the slightest bit of sympathy for the losses families like mine faced during the decades that vaccine was being used. Yes, it saved lives, but at the cost of others. And that needlessly dangerous vaccine would still be in use today if people hadn't pushed for a safer alternative.

[HuckleB]

65. And then you go to the usual unverifiable claims routine.

The only thing that's usual about my posts is that I give a crap about evidence.

OTH, you have clearly chosen to go with nothing but hyperbole. I'm not the one who has no sympathy for others. Not even close.

[pnwmom]

69. And, as usual, you call me a liar.

But that won't stop me from reminding people that we have safer vaccines today because people have fought for them.

[HuckleB]

70. I'm saying you almost always offer unverifiable stuff.

And you use the "concern troll" routine to pretend that you are more moderate than you are. You have shown your stripes, so why are you trying to turn back the clock now?

[pnwmom]

71. What a crock. You only read posts about vaccines so you have no idea what I post. n/t

[HuckleB]

73. Actually, I do.

And you know it. It's too bad you won't be forthcoming to admit it.

BTW, I like you are now ignoring the reality of dosing and poison in order to push more dishonest, hyperbolic propaganda.

[HuckleB]

68. Steven Novella Offers A Better Portrayal Of The Study And Its Conclusions

Messaging and Public Health
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/messaging-and-public-health/#more-30477

[ScreamingMeemie]

72. Too many idiots are still opting out here in Texas.

Watching their child die a painful, preventable death is preferred apparently.

[HuckleB]

74. It's bad all over, I guess.

Here in Oregon, we're apparently number one for opting out. The whole "natural is better" routine turns into a wall that refuses to let evidence pass.