4 ms·

I'm so sick of comments like this. I'll read the goddamn information presented to me and use my own critical thinking skills to determine what I see as useful.

I'm so sick of comments like this. I'll read the goddamn information presented to me and use my own critical thinking skills to determine what I see as useful. Whatever past the person has, if there is a potential issue with something, it's someone like this who has been paying attention with a focus on the matter who will alert us first.

ceejayoz 5y ago
- Shartacus 5y ago
- blast 5y ago
  > Cool. What if it's misleading? That question applies in literally every case and therefore doesn't change change the optimal strategy. > What if it requires some domain expertise to detect a reasonable-sounding, but actually false claim? That question applies just as much to links from "sciencebasedmedicine.org" as it does to the OP.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > That question applies just as much to links from "sciencebasedmedicine.org" as it does to the OP. Sure, which is why being aware of both is valuable.
- choward 5y ago
  - dang 5y ago
    Please don't cross into snark and attack like that. It adds poison to the ecosystem and weakens your argument. More explanation here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30016018 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30016018. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > So? That's up to you to determine. Sure, which is why I find it useful to know about the source, and criticism of their past work, when evaluating an op-ed just published in a field that requires substantial domain knowledge to fairly evaluate claims. I linked an article not very charitable towards the author because I consider it valuable in exactly this sort of determination. > You don't need an expert to tell you transparency is good. You don't need an expert to tell you complete transparency can have downsides, especially where patients' medical data is involved. HN usually takes a dim view of "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about", but the rapid release of raw medical records is the sort of scenario where people may have lots to hide.
- drcross 5y ago
  The chairman of Thompson Reuters, who professionally fact check information for Facebook, is on the board of Pfizer which is a grave conflict of interest and there's been repeated examples of them lying outright so all bets are off on who you may suggest is being misleading.
  - tazedsoul 5y ago
    Love how people won’t even admit this fact into the conversation. Thank you, sincerely, for bringing this up.
  - jeromegv 5y ago
    So you think that all studies AND hospitalization data that show the benefit of the vaccines now that billions of people are vaccinated are... FALSE... across hundreds of countries... because the chairman of ONE news organization is on the board of Pfizer? I appreciate how antivax people love to share this fact like this is the ULTIMATE argument as to why the vaccine is actually BAD.

ceejayoz 5y ago

Shartacus 5y ago
blast 5y ago
> Cool. What if it's misleading? That question applies in literally every case and therefore doesn't change change the optimal strategy. > What if it requires some domain expertise to detect a reasonable-sounding, but actually false claim? That question applies just as much to links from "sciencebasedmedicine.org" as it does to the OP.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > That question applies just as much to links from "sciencebasedmedicine.org" as it does to the OP. Sure, which is why being aware of both is valuable.
choward 5y ago
- dang 5y ago
  Please don't cross into snark and attack like that. It adds poison to the ecosystem and weakens your argument. More explanation here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30016018 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30016018. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > So? That's up to you to determine. Sure, which is why I find it useful to know about the source, and criticism of their past work, when evaluating an op-ed just published in a field that requires substantial domain knowledge to fairly evaluate claims. I linked an article not very charitable towards the author because I consider it valuable in exactly this sort of determination. > You don't need an expert to tell you transparency is good. You don't need an expert to tell you complete transparency can have downsides, especially where patients' medical data is involved. HN usually takes a dim view of "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about", but the rapid release of raw medical records is the sort of scenario where people may have lots to hide.
drcross 5y ago
The chairman of Thompson Reuters, who professionally fact check information for Facebook, is on the board of Pfizer which is a grave conflict of interest and there's been repeated examples of them lying outright so all bets are off on who you may suggest is being misleading.
- tazedsoul 5y ago
  Love how people won’t even admit this fact into the conversation. Thank you, sincerely, for bringing this up.
- jeromegv 5y ago
  So you think that all studies AND hospitalization data that show the benefit of the vaccines now that billions of people are vaccinated are... FALSE... across hundreds of countries... because the chairman of ONE news organization is on the board of Pfizer? I appreciate how antivax people love to share this fact like this is the ULTIMATE argument as to why the vaccine is actually BAD.