4 ms·

Replace the word "denialist" with "skeptic" and you have a semantically identical but implicitly reversed rant. Why are people so skeptical? Because they quit

Replace the word "denialist" with "skeptic" and you have a semantically identical but implicitly reversed rant. Why are people so skeptical? Because they quite sensibly question dictates from institutions/corporations/government bodies/etc which demonstrably do not always have the public's interests at heart. Etc, etc. Any time you hear somebody loading up and firing slur after slur after slur after slur, it's best to look for a different rant. Do vaccines cause autism? Apparently not. But, you know, it is possible and as long as we're injecting millions of people with pathogens, we are probably wise to consider possible negative effects. It's not "denialist".

jokermatt999 16y ago
Yes, being skeptical about things is generally good. I agree that there should be legitimate testing for those types of things. However, I don't think the vaccine/autism scare is a good example here. The research that was done on that that suggested a link was incredibly biased, poorly done, and sensationalized. Furthermore, the skepticism about vaccines caused far more harm than autism. Children have actually died from people refusing vaccines. www.jennymccarthybodycount.com You can debate whether those statistics are perfectly accurate or not, but even a single death that was purely preventable is too much.
CodeMage 16y ago
Regardless of the article itself, what do you call it when people persist in believing in the alleged link between MMR vaccine and autism, after the link has been thoroughly debunked? To paraphrase one of my favorite writers, those people have their feet wet and can see the pyramids really well, 'cause they're standing knee-deep in De Nile.
- mistermann 16y ago
  "after the link has been thoroughly debunked?" If a relationship between a vaccination and a negative reaction cannot be definitively confirmed, then it does not show up in the statistics...in case you actually are interested in the truth. There is a website somewhere that tracks all of this, but my question is, why wouldn't the official people already involved track fucking everything? It costs exactly zero over and above what they are doing now, so why exclude it? This is where the conspiracy theories come from. You have the means and budget to track everything, but you don't. My question is: why? Combine that with some weird stories I hear, and the fact that it is free for you to counter them with data, but you don't, and there you go, a conspiracy theory.
  - CodeMage 16y ago
    why wouldn't the official people already involved track fucking everything? It costs exactly zero over and above what they are doing now, so why exclude it? I'm not really sure who are those "official people already involved", but what I would really like to know is how you're so sure that "it costs exactly zero and above what they are doing now" to track "fucking everything"? First, let's go with the simple thing: how this tracking is supposed to be done. I'm just extrapolating here, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I've had no doctor follow my kid around after vaccination 24/7 to monitor whether he's suddenly developed a symptom, so I suppose it's not by direct observation. Therefore, it must depend on some doctor connecting the dots ("oh, so you vaccinated your kid 3 months ago and now he has X?") and reporting it to some tracking body. Which leads me to the next issue. To put it like you did: how the fuck do you track "fucking everything"? I can understand that the doctors would be informed about a suspected link between A and B and would therefore report any cases of A and B happening "together", where "together" is defined as a parameter of this suspected link. But for that, you need to at least suspect that there's a link between A and B. Maybe I'm too naive, but to me it stands to reason that tracking "fucking everything" does not cost "zero", because otherwise someone would have been doing it already. Whenever someone claims that it would be easy to do something someone's not doing already, I remember Yegge's post "Have you ever legalized marijuana?": http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legalized-marijuana.html http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legali... Combine that with some weird stories I hear, and the fact that it is free for you to counter them with data, but you don't, and there you go, a conspiracy theory. Okay. Here's how that reads: "I hear stories from people and nobody seems to counter that with data, so I choose to believe in a conspiracy. Especially because I believe it would be 'free' to come up with data." ...in case you actually are interested in the truth. In case you are, here's a dose of it: http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html
    - mistermann 16y ago
      This: ("oh, so you vaccinated your kid 3 months ago and now he has X?") and reporting it to some tracking body. Why is this not done? Doesn't that seem a bit odd? And yes, I was exaggerating, it wouldn't be free. But it could be done for very little cost.
diego_moita 16y ago
> Apparently not. No they absolutely don't. And cellphone "radiation" doesn't cause cancer, also. Surprised? > But, you know, it is possible Facts, please. > and as long as we're injecting millions of people with pathogens, The correct term is "as long as we're saving them from yellow fever, smallpox, dengue fever, etc., etc". Here in the 3rd world these diseases are killing millions of times more children than your imagined autism. Oh my, why is HN such a nest for conspiracy theorists?

jokermatt999 16y ago

Yes, being skeptical about things is generally good. I agree that there should be legitimate testing for those types of things. However, I don't think the vaccine/autism scare is a good example here. The research that was done on that that suggested a link was incredibly biased, poorly done, and sensationalized. Furthermore, the skepticism about vaccines caused far more harm than autism. Children have actually died from people refusing vaccines. www.jennymccarthybodycount.com You can debate whether those statistics are perfectly accurate or not, but even a single death that was purely preventable is too much.

CodeMage 16y ago

Regardless of the article itself, what do you call it when people persist in believing in the alleged link between MMR vaccine and autism, after the link has been thoroughly debunked? To paraphrase one of my favorite writers, those people have their feet wet and can see the pyramids really well, 'cause they're standing knee-deep in De Nile.

mistermann 16y ago
"after the link has been thoroughly debunked?" If a relationship between a vaccination and a negative reaction cannot be definitively confirmed, then it does not show up in the statistics...in case you actually are interested in the truth. There is a website somewhere that tracks all of this, but my question is, why wouldn't the official people already involved track fucking everything? It costs exactly zero over and above what they are doing now, so why exclude it? This is where the conspiracy theories come from. You have the means and budget to track everything, but you don't. My question is: why? Combine that with some weird stories I hear, and the fact that it is free for you to counter them with data, but you don't, and there you go, a conspiracy theory.
- CodeMage 16y ago
  why wouldn't the official people already involved track fucking everything? It costs exactly zero over and above what they are doing now, so why exclude it? I'm not really sure who are those "official people already involved", but what I would really like to know is how you're so sure that "it costs exactly zero and above what they are doing now" to track "fucking everything"? First, let's go with the simple thing: how this tracking is supposed to be done. I'm just extrapolating here, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I've had no doctor follow my kid around after vaccination 24/7 to monitor whether he's suddenly developed a symptom, so I suppose it's not by direct observation. Therefore, it must depend on some doctor connecting the dots ("oh, so you vaccinated your kid 3 months ago and now he has X?") and reporting it to some tracking body. Which leads me to the next issue. To put it like you did: how the fuck do you track "fucking everything"? I can understand that the doctors would be informed about a suspected link between A and B and would therefore report any cases of A and B happening "together", where "together" is defined as a parameter of this suspected link. But for that, you need to at least suspect that there's a link between A and B. Maybe I'm too naive, but to me it stands to reason that tracking "fucking everything" does not cost "zero", because otherwise someone would have been doing it already. Whenever someone claims that it would be easy to do something someone's not doing already, I remember Yegge's post "Have you ever legalized marijuana?": http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legalized-marijuana.html http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legali... Combine that with some weird stories I hear, and the fact that it is free for you to counter them with data, but you don't, and there you go, a conspiracy theory. Okay. Here's how that reads: "I hear stories from people and nobody seems to counter that with data, so I choose to believe in a conspiracy. Especially because I believe it would be 'free' to come up with data." ...in case you actually are interested in the truth. In case you are, here's a dose of it: http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html
  - mistermann 16y ago
    This: ("oh, so you vaccinated your kid 3 months ago and now he has X?") and reporting it to some tracking body. Why is this not done? Doesn't that seem a bit odd? And yes, I was exaggerating, it wouldn't be free. But it could be done for very little cost.

diego_moita 16y ago

> Apparently not. No they absolutely don't. And cellphone "radiation" doesn't cause cancer, also. Surprised? > But, you know, it is possible Facts, please. > and as long as we're injecting millions of people with pathogens, The correct term is "as long as we're saving them from yellow fever, smallpox, dengue fever, etc., etc". Here in the 3rd world these diseases are killing millions of times more children than your imagined autism. Oh my, why is HN such a nest for conspiracy theorists?