8 ms·

> 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 di

> 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.

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.