Anti-vaccination? Check. Anti-GMO? Check. Absolute loon? Check.
"Dem science-ers iz SCARY!" 
#1524: Vicky DeBold
The National Vaccine Information Center is a deranged hub of conspiracy theorists devoted to the promotion of pseudo-scientific denialism about vaccines. Being that organization’s director of research and safety is not anything to be proud of and if you, like Vicky DeBold, hold that position while being an RN and a PhD, your career has taken a serious wrong turn at some point. In fact, DeBold has, according to her bio at NVIC, extensive experience “as an ICU nurse, health care administrator, health policy analyst and research scientist primarily focusing on pediatrics and patient safety.” At present, she is even “Research Scientist and Affiliate Faculty member at George Mason University in the Health Administration and Policy Department where she teaches Health Services Research Methods and Introduction to the US Healthcare System.”
Yet the NVIC remains one of the most influential anti-vaccine organizations in the US, and DeBold is an anti-vaxxer. Crankery rarely comes in isolation, however, and like many anti-vaxxers, DeBold is apparently also attracted to the anti-GMO movement – after all, anti-GMO crackpottery is also often characterized by fallacious appeals to nature, and tends to rely on strikingly similar types of misinformation and pseudo- or bad science to attack GMOs as the anti-vaccine movement uses to attack vaccines. And when you’re both antivaxx and a GMO-conspiracy theorist, there’s at least one move that you can’t resist: According to DeBold, you should be deeply concerned about those GM vaccines, some of which are already on the CDC’s recommended vaccine schedule. Frankenvaccines, really. And it doesn’t matter what science, evidence or tests say – intuitions tell DeBold that such unnatural abominations can be nothing but unholy: Foreign DNA will contaminate your child’s precious bodily fluids and affect your child’s essence, or something. “I think the use of foreign DNA in various forms has a potential to cause a great deal of trouble. Not only because there is the potential for it to recombine with our own DNA, but there is the potential for it to turn the DNA’s switches, the epigenetic parts of the DNA, on and off.” And the proposed mechanism by which this is supposed to happen? Black magick, it seems. Certainly there are few other alternatives.
http://americanloons.blogspot.ca/2015/11/1524-vicky-debold.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
posting a link to a Poll done by National Geographic on differences of opinion between people and scientists on key issues.
It would appear that 68% of people polled felt that childhood vaccination should be required and only 37% felt that eating GMO foods was safe. The corresponding gaps on the issues with scientists polled was 18% (childhood vaccine) and 51% (are GMO's safe to eat)
Personally, I don't agree that there is a link between mindsets on these two topics and I offer the National Geo poll as one proof point.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/150129-public-opinion-aaas-health-education-science/
The reason most anti-GMO people are anti-GMO (in my experience, sorry I don't have statistics) is THE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND OTHER SPECIES.
It has not one fucking thing to do with whether eating it will make me sick directly.
I would probably not even answer that poll question because the meaning of the word "safe" could be ambiguous.
On the other hand if the question were whether GMO foods should be labeled, that would make a lot more sense, and probably have a significantly different result.
Last edited Sun Nov 22, 2015, 11:48 AM - Edit history (1)
And, interestingly, the trend follows all-too often at DU.
There is no reason that any fear directed at biotech crops cannot be applied to the spontaneous or induced mutations that are the basis of conventional breeding. It is common practice in agriculture to expose seeds to high doses of radiation to induce mutations, then grow out the products of those mutations, and see if any good changes emerge. Ruby Red Grapefruit, for example, was developed in this way. How do we know what hidden mutations lie in the Ruby Red DNA? Short answer: we don't. No one knows if there are any long-term health effects or environmental effects to this sloppy method of inducing mutations for conventional breeding, and there are over 3,000 such varieties. Furthermore, no testing is required or performed. The genes are not mapped. The crops are not tested. And, here's a funny bit: such plants can be certified "Organic" so long as they are grown by approved organic methods. It's scientifically ridiculous.