3 ms·

At first I thought it was useful that you were elaborating for others but no, you were actually triggered by someone that was affirming the same information as

At first I thought it was useful that you were elaborating for others but no, you were actually triggered by someone that was affirming the same information as you its like you skipped the part about acknowledging why people are accurately skeptical of an entity that undermined their trust in favor of copying the exact same article for anybody that looks, because you didn’t like the way a different part was summarized, cute. lesson: if you want the support of people that actually are invalidating a group entirely, you need to acknowledge the parts they would agree with, and then add in the conclusion, like I did.

olliej 3y ago
Your opening sentence is "yes, that did undermine their credibility with some populations, despite being only 201 people that never had syphilis in that study, 100 years ago" which misrepresents the number of impacted people, overstates how long ago this was, and is overtly dismissive of what the study did ("despite being only" is dismissive language). Your comment was inaccurate at best, plainly ignored that actual nature of the "experiment", and again was phrased in a way to imply it was an overreaction to stop trusting the medical providers funded by or aligned with the US government. Hence I wrote a comment that said your stated numbers were objectively false (sure there were 200 people who didn't have syphilis, but there were 400 people who did and for whom treatment was actively denied, and doctors who did treat them received complaints, and it killed more than a hundred people, more than half the people your comment claimed were involved). Your "summary" was fundamentally false and acting like my comment was because I "didn't like how a different part was summarized" is questionable.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  it was also accurate. the parts I did write were also accurate. it isn't important that you want to highlight the end of the experiment instead of the beginning.

olliej 3y ago

Your opening sentence is "yes, that did undermine their credibility with some populations, despite being only 201 people that never had syphilis in that study, 100 years ago" which misrepresents the number of impacted people, overstates how long ago this was, and is overtly dismissive of what the study did ("despite being only" is dismissive language). Your comment was inaccurate at best, plainly ignored that actual nature of the "experiment", and again was phrased in a way to imply it was an overreaction to stop trusting the medical providers funded by or aligned with the US government. Hence I wrote a comment that said your stated numbers were objectively false (sure there were 200 people who didn't have syphilis, but there were 400 people who did and for whom treatment was actively denied, and doctors who did treat them received complaints, and it killed more than a hundred people, more than half the people your comment claimed were involved). Your "summary" was fundamentally false and acting like my comment was because I "didn't like how a different part was summarized" is questionable.

yieldcrv 3y ago
it was also accurate. the parts I did write were also accurate. it isn't important that you want to highlight the end of the experiment instead of the beginning.