11 ms·

It's pretty interesting that as soon as a certain famous snake oil peddler starts yammering about his n-th insane theory, HN immediately jumps on it and starts

It's pretty interesting that as soon as a certain famous snake oil peddler starts yammering about his n-th insane theory, HN immediately jumps on it and starts serious consideration and deliberation. It's very much the same way he ended up with billions worth of free coverage during the campaign because the media could not help themselves but constantly entertain and discuss his ramblings. Occam's Razor: He's just a senile old coot full of quack theories about everything. There's tons of people like him, you don't have to waste your time on them.

basementcat 7y ago
This "famous person" was selected to serve as the head of state by the citizens of the country with the second largest nuclear weapons arsenal. His pronouncements have the force of official public policy.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  That may be, but neither the size of one's nuclear arsenal nor "official public policy" turns pseudoscience into an effective treatment.
- vmh1928 7y ago
  That's not how it works. The ramblings of the president do not have any legal force.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    As the head of the executive branch, that's exactly how it works. Edit: Not sure why I'm being downvoted. Public statements in the official capacity as president are absolutely policy statements for the executive when they aren't affecting independent bodies like the Department of Justice. The Department of Health and Human Services isn't an independent body, and so the president's statements in a damn press briefing are policy positions. This is like saying that a CEO's press statements somehow aren't policy positions of the company.
  - jimbokun 7y ago
    Many people have been trying to figure out if that's true or not. Like all the times the President has announced a new policy on Twitter, but none of the people who would be responsible for implementing it knew about it or understood the specifics of what he actually wanted to happen.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- RIMR 7y ago
  You don't actually have to listen to this person if the things they say are reliably without merit. Our nuclear weapons have nothing to do with the situation, and I don't imagine there is any risk of that situation changing. He also won, with fewer votes than his competition, while only half of eligible voters cast ballots. You're allowed to view this person as illegitimate. Sometimes the situation necessitates that we do that.
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    > He also won, with fewer votes than his competition, while only half of eligible voters cast ballots. I don’t think that’s right. The presidential vote count in the 2016 election was 304 Trump to 227 Clinton [0]. And all 50 states voted. What system are you going by? > You're allowed to view this person as illegitimate Yes, you are. The constitution grants all sorts of protections from the government for ideas right or wrong. However... If you are using said constitution’s rules for how STATES vote for president, not people vote for president... [0] https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/2016 https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/2016 Edit: I’m confused by reaction, where is the incorrect part here? Edit2: Oh, the reaction is emotional. I see
    - slavak 7y ago
      I think it's pretty clear "votes" meant what's known in the US as "the popular vote," not "electoral votes," particularly since it's impossible, under the US election system, to win the presidential elections with fewer electoral votes than the opponent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia...
      - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
        But that’s not the voting system we use. So, no, Trump didn’t win with fewer “votes” if we’re at all being intellectually honest about what votes matter. This site is all about intellectuals being honest and arguing in good faith using the steel man method right? Edit: “Stop” what? Are the rules of this site not steel man arguments with intellectual honesty? I’m genuinely confused and not trolling at all - where I have posted something incorrect? Because Dang, if the content isn’t correct, why is the post now flagged? If it’s correct info and -10 or so... isn’t that a problem that creates an echo chamber?
- dicknuckle 7y ago
  After he lost the popular vote. Other elected representatives selected him.
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    I’m confused, can you clarify you are referring to? Edit: In what way was Trump “selected” and not elected by the rules laid out in the constitution? Edit2: So not selected, and yes entirely by the rules we’ve always used.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - rsynnott 7y ago
      In the American electoral system, you don't technically vote for the president; you vote for the electors who elect the president. This almost never matters, except quite often.
    - cyphar 7y ago
      In the US, the public doesn't vote for the president directly. They elect electors for their state who then vote for the president. This system is called the electoral college and the net result is that a candidate can win the popular vote (the majority of voters voted for them) without winning the presidency. This has happened many times in US history, and it happened most recently in 2016.
      - rsynnott 7y ago
        Well, only four times: 1867: Tilden (4,288,546) - Hayes (4,034,311) - Hayes wins. 1888: Harrison (5,443,892) - Cleveland (5,534,488) - Harrison wins. 2000: Bush (50,456,002) - Gore (50,999,897) - Bush wins 2016: Clinton (65,853,514) - Trump (62,984,828) - Trump wins. To further confuse the issue, 2 Republican electors and 5 Democratic electors _voted for other candidates_ in 2016, though it wasn't significant in the end.
  - cmurf 7y ago
- gorgoiler 7y ago
  > country Is that the US or Russia? (Light hearted comment for a non serious thread!)
  - dang 7y ago
    Please don't add nationalistic flamebait to partisan flamebait on HN. Adding damage to damage doesn't lighten hearts. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - gorgoiler 7y ago
      Sorry. This was me throwing peanuts at a thread that I had hoped would get flagged into the abyss anyway, and already by my reading contained a lot of ironic Friday afternoon eye rolling. A certain sense of gallows humor here, I felt. I can see my comment is pretty damaging if it gets any actual views (which I didn’t expect it to, but that’s no excuse!) In another setting it might make a good womp womp dad joke — as intended — but not here.
- rsynnott 7y ago
  > His pronouncements have the force of official public policy. Your periodic reminder that the US is not in fact a dictatorship, and that random ex-cathedra rambling by Trump does not have the force of law.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    Just because some of his trial balloons are abandoned to drift away on the winds of public ridicule does make it OK. What of the fact that his tweets are often followed up with orders that do have the force of law?
lol2143651 7y ago
He asked a question, he didn't peddle a theory.
- brandon272 7y ago
  A function of these press conferences is that he is communicating to the American people. Not the time or the place to "ask questions" about "injecting disinfectants" or spitballing with his advisors. Edit: Apparently he was being "sarcastic". Unbelievable. https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1253736546534141963 https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1253736546534141963
  - lol2143651 7y ago
    Seems like it is for the president to decide what they are for; not you.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- RIMR 7y ago
  He asked a question about an unsubstantiated theory that nobody was talking about in the medical field. Even if he was "normal" politician, we shouldn't be listening to politicians about medical advice, and they shouldn't be pushing pseudoscience contrary to what medical professionals and virologists are saying. Asking loaded questions about pseudoscience, that implies that there is some sort of promise in it, absolutely counts as peddling it.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  (Following a discussion of viral half-life on surfaces when exposed to UV): "So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that hasn't been checked but you're going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that too. Sounds interesting." There was more about possibly injecting disinfectants but you get the drift. As of a few minutes ago he's saying that he 'asking a question sarcastically to see what would happen.' https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/494519-trump-says-remarks-about-heat-light-disinfectant-were-sarcastic https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/494519-trump-say... I'm reminded of this cartoon: https://www.lovethispic.com/uploaded_images/29513-What-Trolls-Want-You-To-Believe.jpg https://www.lovethispic.com/uploaded_images/29513-What-Troll...
kyleblarson 7y ago
Don't worry, you can replace him with another old man with dementia come November.
- hanniabu 7y ago
  And that's the sad state of the US right now. Still can't believe how the media black listed Bernie unless it was to discuss anything negative, no matter how minute.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    Who is also rapidly approaching 80. It's really sad that the whole political establishment in the US is so old. Pelosi, McConnell, Trump, Biden. And they don't let young people come up. With "young" I mean 50 and still at the peak of their abilities and not going downhill.
    - dicknuckle 7y ago
      They're just bartenders afterall.
- sobellian 7y ago
  Do you actually know he has dementia, or are you just speculating?
  - rednerrus 7y ago
    He seems to have trouble reading off a teleprompter and making a complete sentence. It seems intermittent.
    - bjoernw 7y ago
      Seems consistent with his speech impediment, no?
  - slg 7y ago
TeMPOraL 7y ago
> as soon as a certain famous snake oil peddler starts yammering about his n-th insane theory You mean Donald Trump or Michael R. Hamblin? Because if it's the first (as a comment downthread implies) then I must've missed a big story, and if the second, then I personally haven't heard this name before. I'm guessing most HNers are like me: drawn to interesting ideas that seem to make sense on the surface. Here, UV light is a known and powerful disinfectant (and seemingly very much underused in this pandemic), ionizing radiation is commonly used in medicine, and applying it as a blood filter sounds like a plausible idea - so overall, sounds like a compelling reason to check out the article and the comment section.
- swebs 7y ago
  >ecause if it's the first (as a comment downthread implies) then I must've missed a big story Yeah but it was more like a slow news day than a big story. Yesterday President Trump said this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHkzqejFKbM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHkzqejFKbM And the media reacted as expected.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Oh, I see. Thanks for the missing context!
- RIMR 7y ago
  Look, nobody is convinced that this was posted here in good faith, nor do we have any reason to believe that people like you who are pushing for a "discussion" about this are motivated by anything other than supporting Donald Trump's declarations. If this technology were effective, we would already be using it. This isn't some secret cure that we forgot about - it's an ineffective treatment that we did away with. Focusing on this topic isn't for the benefit of COVID-19 patients during this crisis - it's for the benefit of Donald Trump's reelection as he gambles on snake oil cures for this virus. So maybe ask yourself what you care about more: Human life, or politics?
zpeti 7y ago
Ever thought that perhaps presidents get a quick rundown of what potential cures the US government is looking at? And this is fairly standard practice, and as mentioned below there might be some legitimate ideas to use UV. The fact that he went off script and talked about things that aren’t confirmed and are speculation is not good, but he did say it was speculation. Yes he should be more responsible in his comms as president, but your attitude of automatic dismissal and thinking he’s an idiot is exactly why he managed to get elected under the radar.
dominotw 7y ago
Occam's Razor: people are just found this curious at this point in time. no need for conspiracy theory that a cabal of trump supporters are jumping on to find a theory backing his absurd clamis.
dpoochieni 7y ago
Ok boomer, keep wearing your facemask that will keep you safe. Surely
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't respond to a bad comment with a worse one. That's in the site guidelines also: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
rsynnott 7y ago
He is, apparently, now claiming he was being 'sarcastic', thus indicating that he also has no idea what the word sarcastic means. > There's tons of people like him, you don't have to waste your time on them. Unfortunately, the broader 'you' (society) _kind of does_; I know this is nonsense, but lots of people don't, and when he's promoting dangerous behavior that's a problem (see chloroquine).
dang 7y ago
Please don't post like this. Your comment got upvoted to the top of the thread, of course, and sat there accruing mass, choking out interesting discussion. Now that I've marked it off topic, consider that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22968349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22968349 is now the top subthread. That's the difference between HN functioning well and functioning poorly. Most of the damage is caused by the upvotes and replies, but that's what happens when you post something trollish to an inflammatory topic. Edit: on closer inspection, 22968349 is not so great either because if there's anything interesting to discuss about blood irradiation, it's probably not related to Covid-19.
- archagon 7y ago
  Don't you see how if: * An ignorant authoritarian with an obvious agenda sets the discussion topic * We discuss said topic without mentioning his ignorance, authoritarianism, or agenda The topic effectively becomes "laundered"? Much like OP, I've seen this over and over again. Trump (or similar) says something batshit insane, a "well, maybe..." topic gets bumped to the front page, political discussion gets culled from the thread, topic gets somewhat normalized. And so the koo-koo express keeps chugging towards the cliff.
  - theplague42 7y ago
    This thread might make me quit visiting this site.
  - dang 7y ago
    I partly agree but would put it differently. When an obscure topic (like ultraviolet blood irradiation) is connected to some trigger in the daily news, people will end up arguing about the daily news rather than delving into the obscure topic. So from an HN point of view, that's the worst time for the topic to appear. HN should be countercyclical instead. This case has made that even clearer to me than it already was. At the same time, HN is not for internet ragewar and users here should know enough not to feed those flames.
    - deleted 7y ago

basementcat 7y ago

This "famous person" was selected to serve as the head of state by the citizens of the country with the second largest nuclear weapons arsenal. His pronouncements have the force of official public policy.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
That may be, but neither the size of one's nuclear arsenal nor "official public policy" turns pseudoscience into an effective treatment.
vmh1928 7y ago
That's not how it works. The ramblings of the president do not have any legal force.
- monocasa 7y ago
  As the head of the executive branch, that's exactly how it works. Edit: Not sure why I'm being downvoted. Public statements in the official capacity as president are absolutely policy statements for the executive when they aren't affecting independent bodies like the Department of Justice. The Department of Health and Human Services isn't an independent body, and so the president's statements in a damn press briefing are policy positions. This is like saying that a CEO's press statements somehow aren't policy positions of the company.
- jimbokun 7y ago
  Many people have been trying to figure out if that's true or not. Like all the times the President has announced a new policy on Twitter, but none of the people who would be responsible for implementing it knew about it or understood the specifics of what he actually wanted to happen.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
RIMR 7y ago
You don't actually have to listen to this person if the things they say are reliably without merit. Our nuclear weapons have nothing to do with the situation, and I don't imagine there is any risk of that situation changing. He also won, with fewer votes than his competition, while only half of eligible voters cast ballots. You're allowed to view this person as illegitimate. Sometimes the situation necessitates that we do that.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  > He also won, with fewer votes than his competition, while only half of eligible voters cast ballots. I don’t think that’s right. The presidential vote count in the 2016 election was 304 Trump to 227 Clinton [0]. And all 50 states voted. What system are you going by? > You're allowed to view this person as illegitimate Yes, you are. The constitution grants all sorts of protections from the government for ideas right or wrong. However... If you are using said constitution’s rules for how STATES vote for president, not people vote for president... [0] https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/2016 https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/2016 Edit: I’m confused by reaction, where is the incorrect part here? Edit2: Oh, the reaction is emotional. I see
  - slavak 7y ago
    I think it's pretty clear "votes" meant what's known in the US as "the popular vote," not "electoral votes," particularly since it's impossible, under the US election system, to win the presidential elections with fewer electoral votes than the opponent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia...
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      But that’s not the voting system we use. So, no, Trump didn’t win with fewer “votes” if we’re at all being intellectually honest about what votes matter. This site is all about intellectuals being honest and arguing in good faith using the steel man method right? Edit: “Stop” what? Are the rules of this site not steel man arguments with intellectual honesty? I’m genuinely confused and not trolling at all - where I have posted something incorrect? Because Dang, if the content isn’t correct, why is the post now flagged? If it’s correct info and -10 or so... isn’t that a problem that creates an echo chamber?
dicknuckle 7y ago
After he lost the popular vote. Other elected representatives selected him.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  I’m confused, can you clarify you are referring to? Edit: In what way was Trump “selected” and not elected by the rules laid out in the constitution? Edit2: So not selected, and yes entirely by the rules we’ve always used.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - rsynnott 7y ago
    In the American electoral system, you don't technically vote for the president; you vote for the electors who elect the president. This almost never matters, except quite often.
  - cyphar 7y ago
    In the US, the public doesn't vote for the president directly. They elect electors for their state who then vote for the president. This system is called the electoral college and the net result is that a candidate can win the popular vote (the majority of voters voted for them) without winning the presidency. This has happened many times in US history, and it happened most recently in 2016.
    - rsynnott 7y ago
      Well, only four times: 1867: Tilden (4,288,546) - Hayes (4,034,311) - Hayes wins. 1888: Harrison (5,443,892) - Cleveland (5,534,488) - Harrison wins. 2000: Bush (50,456,002) - Gore (50,999,897) - Bush wins 2016: Clinton (65,853,514) - Trump (62,984,828) - Trump wins. To further confuse the issue, 2 Republican electors and 5 Democratic electors _voted for other candidates_ in 2016, though it wasn't significant in the end.
- cmurf 7y ago
gorgoiler 7y ago
> country Is that the US or Russia? (Light hearted comment for a non serious thread!)
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't add nationalistic flamebait to partisan flamebait on HN. Adding damage to damage doesn't lighten hearts. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - gorgoiler 7y ago
    Sorry. This was me throwing peanuts at a thread that I had hoped would get flagged into the abyss anyway, and already by my reading contained a lot of ironic Friday afternoon eye rolling. A certain sense of gallows humor here, I felt. I can see my comment is pretty damaging if it gets any actual views (which I didn’t expect it to, but that’s no excuse!) In another setting it might make a good womp womp dad joke — as intended — but not here.
rsynnott 7y ago
> His pronouncements have the force of official public policy. Your periodic reminder that the US is not in fact a dictatorship, and that random ex-cathedra rambling by Trump does not have the force of law.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  Just because some of his trial balloons are abandoned to drift away on the winds of public ridicule does make it OK. What of the fact that his tweets are often followed up with orders that do have the force of law?

lol2143651 7y ago

He asked a question, he didn't peddle a theory.

brandon272 7y ago
A function of these press conferences is that he is communicating to the American people. Not the time or the place to "ask questions" about "injecting disinfectants" or spitballing with his advisors. Edit: Apparently he was being "sarcastic". Unbelievable. https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1253736546534141963 https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1253736546534141963
- lol2143651 7y ago
  Seems like it is for the president to decide what they are for; not you.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
RIMR 7y ago
He asked a question about an unsubstantiated theory that nobody was talking about in the medical field. Even if he was "normal" politician, we shouldn't be listening to politicians about medical advice, and they shouldn't be pushing pseudoscience contrary to what medical professionals and virologists are saying. Asking loaded questions about pseudoscience, that implies that there is some sort of promise in it, absolutely counts as peddling it.
anigbrowl 7y ago
(Following a discussion of viral half-life on surfaces when exposed to UV): "So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that hasn't been checked but you're going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that too. Sounds interesting." There was more about possibly injecting disinfectants but you get the drift. As of a few minutes ago he's saying that he 'asking a question sarcastically to see what would happen.' https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/494519-trump-says-remarks-about-heat-light-disinfectant-were-sarcastic https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/494519-trump-say... I'm reminded of this cartoon: https://www.lovethispic.com/uploaded_images/29513-What-Trolls-Want-You-To-Believe.jpg https://www.lovethispic.com/uploaded_images/29513-What-Troll...

kyleblarson 7y ago

Don't worry, you can replace him with another old man with dementia come November.

hanniabu 7y ago
And that's the sad state of the US right now. Still can't believe how the media black listed Bernie unless it was to discuss anything negative, no matter how minute.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  Who is also rapidly approaching 80. It's really sad that the whole political establishment in the US is so old. Pelosi, McConnell, Trump, Biden. And they don't let young people come up. With "young" I mean 50 and still at the peak of their abilities and not going downhill.
  - dicknuckle 7y ago
    They're just bartenders afterall.
sobellian 7y ago
Do you actually know he has dementia, or are you just speculating?
- rednerrus 7y ago
  He seems to have trouble reading off a teleprompter and making a complete sentence. It seems intermittent.
  - bjoernw 7y ago
    Seems consistent with his speech impediment, no?
- slg 7y ago

TeMPOraL 7y ago

> as soon as a certain famous snake oil peddler starts yammering about his n-th insane theory You mean Donald Trump or Michael R. Hamblin? Because if it's the first (as a comment downthread implies) then I must've missed a big story, and if the second, then I personally haven't heard this name before. I'm guessing most HNers are like me: drawn to interesting ideas that seem to make sense on the surface. Here, UV light is a known and powerful disinfectant (and seemingly very much underused in this pandemic), ionizing radiation is commonly used in medicine, and applying it as a blood filter sounds like a plausible idea - so overall, sounds like a compelling reason to check out the article and the comment section.

swebs 7y ago
>ecause if it's the first (as a comment downthread implies) then I must've missed a big story Yeah but it was more like a slow news day than a big story. Yesterday President Trump said this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHkzqejFKbM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHkzqejFKbM And the media reacted as expected.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Oh, I see. Thanks for the missing context!
RIMR 7y ago
Look, nobody is convinced that this was posted here in good faith, nor do we have any reason to believe that people like you who are pushing for a "discussion" about this are motivated by anything other than supporting Donald Trump's declarations. If this technology were effective, we would already be using it. This isn't some secret cure that we forgot about - it's an ineffective treatment that we did away with. Focusing on this topic isn't for the benefit of COVID-19 patients during this crisis - it's for the benefit of Donald Trump's reelection as he gambles on snake oil cures for this virus. So maybe ask yourself what you care about more: Human life, or politics?

zpeti 7y ago

Ever thought that perhaps presidents get a quick rundown of what potential cures the US government is looking at? And this is fairly standard practice, and as mentioned below there might be some legitimate ideas to use UV. The fact that he went off script and talked about things that aren’t confirmed and are speculation is not good, but he did say it was speculation. Yes he should be more responsible in his comms as president, but your attitude of automatic dismissal and thinking he’s an idiot is exactly why he managed to get elected under the radar.

dominotw 7y ago

Occam's Razor: people are just found this curious at this point in time. no need for conspiracy theory that a cabal of trump supporters are jumping on to find a theory backing his absurd clamis.

dpoochieni 7y ago

Ok boomer, keep wearing your facemask that will keep you safe. Surely

dang 7y ago
Please don't respond to a bad comment with a worse one. That's in the site guidelines also: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

rsynnott 7y ago

He is, apparently, now claiming he was being 'sarcastic', thus indicating that he also has no idea what the word sarcastic means. > There's tons of people like him, you don't have to waste your time on them. Unfortunately, the broader 'you' (society) _kind of does_; I know this is nonsense, but lots of people don't, and when he's promoting dangerous behavior that's a problem (see chloroquine).

dang 7y ago

Please don't post like this. Your comment got upvoted to the top of the thread, of course, and sat there accruing mass, choking out interesting discussion. Now that I've marked it off topic, consider that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22968349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22968349 is now the top subthread. That's the difference between HN functioning well and functioning poorly. Most of the damage is caused by the upvotes and replies, but that's what happens when you post something trollish to an inflammatory topic. Edit: on closer inspection, 22968349 is not so great either because if there's anything interesting to discuss about blood irradiation, it's probably not related to Covid-19.

archagon 7y ago
Don't you see how if: * An ignorant authoritarian with an obvious agenda sets the discussion topic * We discuss said topic without mentioning his ignorance, authoritarianism, or agenda The topic effectively becomes "laundered"? Much like OP, I've seen this over and over again. Trump (or similar) says something batshit insane, a "well, maybe..." topic gets bumped to the front page, political discussion gets culled from the thread, topic gets somewhat normalized. And so the koo-koo express keeps chugging towards the cliff.
- theplague42 7y ago
  This thread might make me quit visiting this site.
- dang 7y ago
  I partly agree but would put it differently. When an obscure topic (like ultraviolet blood irradiation) is connected to some trigger in the daily news, people will end up arguing about the daily news rather than delving into the obscure topic. So from an HN point of view, that's the worst time for the topic to appear. HN should be countercyclical instead. This case has made that even clearer to me than it already was. At the same time, HN is not for internet ragewar and users here should know enough not to feed those flames.
  - deleted 7y ago