4 ms·

Why change the subject? We were talking about misinformation and debate in the abstract. But alright, now I will again beat you in debate on a different topic.

Why change the subject? We were talking about misinformation and debate in the abstract. But alright, now I will again beat you in debate on a different topic. You claim nobody had issues with the polio vaccine. Are you referring to the polio vaccine that despite a six year development time, accidentally gave 40,000 children polio due to defective manufacturing? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/ "In April 1955 more than 200 000 children in five Western and mid-Western USA states received a polio vaccine in which the process of inactivating the live virus proved to be defective. Within days there were reports of paralysis and within a month the first mass vaccination programme against polio had to be abandoned. Subsequent investigations revealed that the vaccine, manufactured by the California-based family firm of Cutter Laboratories, had caused 40 000 cases of polio, leaving 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis and killing 10." I thought the Cutter Labs incident was quite well known, but apparently not. Now, back on topic. See what I did there? You made a false claim and then asserted that anyone who disagrees with you is the victim of misinformation and engaging in "conspiracy language". You believed there were no issues with the polio vaccine when in fact there were such severe safety issues the first mass vaccination programme had to be abandoned. I responded to this with facts and citations, showing conclusively that it's actually you who is a victim of (pro-vaccine) misinformation in this case, not anyone else. All this is possible due to the internet. You're claiming the "information space" is a "minefield". But that doesn't seem to hold up. The internet is really much, much less dangerous for your mind than reading ordinary newspapers or watching TV news. And that's what Yglesia's is saying - people who doggedly stick to what media/government selected "experts" tell them are constantly being trounced in debate and made to look foolish by facts and data. They react to this with a massive case of projection.

fortuna86 5y ago
> Why change the subject? Lol actually getting off of vague platitudes is "changing the subject". Right, enjoy your weekend. > You made a false claim No I didn't, you either misunderstood what I said or deliberately lied about it to argue a strawman, because that's easier than actually addressing what i'm saying. > The internet is really much, much less dangerous for your mind than reading ordinary newspapers or watching TV news. Lol. Truly, you made me laugh out loud. Funny you didn't say "is more accurate" - because that would be an impossible claim. You said "is less dangerous" which is also patently false. This book is the beginning of most study on the subject: https://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/dp/0393339750 https://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/d... It's unequivocal and damning.
- native_samples 5y ago
  Your claim: > no one had any issues with a polio vaccine Reality: > 40,000 cases of polio, leaving 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis and killing 10 There's no misunderstanding or straw man here. You made a false claim whilst accusing others of misinformation. Which seems to be often the way it goes with "misinformation" - not a vague platitude, of course, but the topic of the entire thread.
  - fortuna86 5y ago
    I said no one had any objections to it, 20% of the population didn't refuse the polio vaccine and refuse to give it to their kids (which is the topic of discussion, if you need reminding again).
    - native_samples 5y ago
      Of course they had objections to it, don't be ridiculous. You think something like that happened and everyone just shrugged and said, hey, no big deal? The reason vaccine companies are immune from legal liability is because after what happened at Cutter Labs there were floods of litigation and a jury found against the vaccine makers, which more or less killed off the vaccine business. From a review of the book: "Dr. Offit also explores how, as a consequence of the tragedy, one jury's verdict set in motion events that eventually suppressed the production of vaccines already licensed and deterred the development of new vaccines that hold the promise of preventing other fatal diseases" A big part of what drives vaccine refusal today is awareness that vaccination campaigns have a history of being so dangerous the producers cannot survive in the open market under the normal rules. Also, the topic of discussion is actually the original article about misinformation and the internet, in general. It was you who insisted on bringing up vaccines in an unrelated thread.
      - fortuna86 5y ago
        > Of course they had objections to it, don't be ridiculous. Not to the point where 20% of the population refused it, which is the point of this discussion. Major news networks didn't run opinion voices lying about the safety and safety and efficacy of the vaccine. Comparing that era to this one is misinformed.

fortuna86 5y ago

> Why change the subject? Lol actually getting off of vague platitudes is "changing the subject". Right, enjoy your weekend. > You made a false claim No I didn't, you either misunderstood what I said or deliberately lied about it to argue a strawman, because that's easier than actually addressing what i'm saying. > The internet is really much, much less dangerous for your mind than reading ordinary newspapers or watching TV news. Lol. Truly, you made me laugh out loud. Funny you didn't say "is more accurate" - because that would be an impossible claim. You said "is less dangerous" which is also patently false. This book is the beginning of most study on the subject: https://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/dp/0393339750 https://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/d... It's unequivocal and damning.

native_samples 5y ago
Your claim: > no one had any issues with a polio vaccine Reality: > 40,000 cases of polio, leaving 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis and killing 10 There's no misunderstanding or straw man here. You made a false claim whilst accusing others of misinformation. Which seems to be often the way it goes with "misinformation" - not a vague platitude, of course, but the topic of the entire thread.
- fortuna86 5y ago
  I said no one had any objections to it, 20% of the population didn't refuse the polio vaccine and refuse to give it to their kids (which is the topic of discussion, if you need reminding again).
  - native_samples 5y ago
    Of course they had objections to it, don't be ridiculous. You think something like that happened and everyone just shrugged and said, hey, no big deal? The reason vaccine companies are immune from legal liability is because after what happened at Cutter Labs there were floods of litigation and a jury found against the vaccine makers, which more or less killed off the vaccine business. From a review of the book: "Dr. Offit also explores how, as a consequence of the tragedy, one jury's verdict set in motion events that eventually suppressed the production of vaccines already licensed and deterred the development of new vaccines that hold the promise of preventing other fatal diseases" A big part of what drives vaccine refusal today is awareness that vaccination campaigns have a history of being so dangerous the producers cannot survive in the open market under the normal rules. Also, the topic of discussion is actually the original article about misinformation and the internet, in general. It was you who insisted on bringing up vaccines in an unrelated thread.
    - fortuna86 5y ago
      > Of course they had objections to it, don't be ridiculous. Not to the point where 20% of the population refused it, which is the point of this discussion. Major news networks didn't run opinion voices lying about the safety and safety and efficacy of the vaccine. Comparing that era to this one is misinformed.