4 ms·
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/ http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/ It was a paper written written that tried to claim
by jameskilton 10y ago
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/ http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/
It was a paper written written that tried to claim that vaccines were behind the rise in Autism.
The paper was later redacted and the author admitted it was completely fake.
But the seed of fear was planted, and no amount of discussion, truth, or facts can change what many Americans "feel" is the truth.
There's also an ever growing "anti-science" and "anti-intellectual" wave in this country that this paper did not help with.
- ant512 10y ago> There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” Isaac Asimov, 1980. http://aphelis.net/cult-ignorance-isaac-asimov-1980/ http://aphelis.net/cult-ignorance-isaac-asimov-1980/
- colanderman 10y agoI think this is part of it, though I feel there's a healthy dose of egoism in there. Americans don't really live in communities like Europeans tend to, and when they do, it tends to be within an socioeconomic bubble. So I think we tend to easily dismiss the worth or even existence of others, the recognition of whom I think would put a damper on anti-intellectualism.
- maverick_iceman 10y agoTo be fair, Europeans display as much ignorance when it comes to GMO foods.
- TheCapn 10y agoI just wanted to throw a bit of an extension so this, and keep in mind this is completely of my opinion/observation. A big drive to what I think is fueling the anti-intellectual movement is a misunderstanding of the scientific research and purpose. Many of the "anti-intellectual" types I've interacted with often cite the same rational for their opinions and it usually falls into a few broad categories: 1) The Egg is Healthy Debate - "First they're healthy, then they're not, then they're healthy again! How can we trust them with this if we can't trust them with eggs!" - It shows lack of understanding that we can change opinion based on new information. Often they want to believe there's this black & white distinction to every issue and can't see the nuances of why something can be both good and bad for you but in different ways. Somewhat of an additional point to this is people are taking it to mean scientists are often wrong, so maybe they're wrong this time too. 2) Bought & Paid Research - Sugar is the most recent one where lots of people are believing the war on fats was a driven narrative by interested groups. Maybe the food pyramid is a good example; something that was taught extensively but was heavily influenced by Agricultural groups. As an extension to this lots of people think they can ignore science at their leisure because they think everything is a bias from some group sponsoring the research that benefits them.
- 2AF3 10y agoIf Dr. Andrew Wakefield 'admitted it was completely fake' why would he produce a movie in 2016 with Dr. William Thompson of the CDC saying precisely the opposite?
- Nursie 10y agoHe and others have provided enough information to the BMA to be struck off, and enough to the Lancet for the research to be withdrawn. He still makes movies because that's how he makes his money these days - scamming rubes.
- 2AF3 10y agoif a cdc whistleblower doesn't phase you nothing will
- splawn 10y agohttp://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cdcwhistleblower.asp http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cdcwhistleblower.asp
- Nursie 10y agoYou mean unsubstantiated bluster, as compared to the actual, you know, fuck-ton of science that shows there's no link and never has been? No, that doesn't phase me in the slightest. If rumours of someone claiming to be from the CDC having said something provocative are a form of evidence to you, then I feel sorry for you.