3 ms·
> To kick off the flamewar: is discussing any treatment but vaccines still == "spreading anti-vax misinformation"? No, only if the discussions on other treatme
by gjulianm 5y ago
> To kick off the flamewar: is discussing any treatment but vaccines still == "spreading anti-vax misinformation"?
No, only if the discussions on other treatments are done without misinformation and some basis on science.
For example, it would be good if you didn't say things like "it sounds like it might be a little better than ventilator damage" when there's no data to back that up, and there's a major difference: ventilators help people stay alive. Even if the UVA treatment worked, you still need something to support patients when their oxygen saturation is dangerously low.
- jes 5y agoHow does one discuss a complex topic with others without some degree of misinformation being present in the conversation?
- gjulianm 5y agoSome degree of misinformation will always happen, of course. But there's a lot of difference between "I heard that the vaccine changes your DNA, is that right?" and "The vaccine is untested and made to control you, meanwhile ivermectin is fully effective against COVID and the doctors are lying to you".
- mercy_dude 5y ago> No, only if the discussions on other treatments are done without misinformation and some basis on science. And who defines what is misinformation?
- gjulianm 5y agoWell, it's pretty easy to spot which information is not exactly right, what is unknown, and what is outright false. It's not that difficult. Somehow the misinformation discussion gets derailed into "but what is actually the truth" empty debates, when the misinformation we are discussing is as stupidly false as "COVID is fake" or "vaccines don't work" for example.