6 ms·

In case anyone is wondering what Chuck Norris has to do with all this: > Chuck and Gena Norris filed a lawsuit against several medical companies in 2017, alleg

In case anyone is wondering what Chuck Norris has to do with all this: > Chuck and Gena Norris filed a lawsuit against several medical companies in 2017, alleging that a gadolinium-based contrast agent used in Gena Norris's MRIs caused her to develop a condition called gadolinium deposition disease and resulted in debilitating symptoms like cognitive issues, pain, and muscle wasting. In January 2020, the Norrises, along with their attorneys, voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled. The dismissal was made without a settlement payment, and each party paid their own legal costs. It might give a glimpse into his worldview to mention that during the COVID pandemic Mr Norris shared an article on social media that claimed that the COVID vaccinations killed millions of people. [0] [0] https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=870953857718632&id=100044120782094 https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=870953857718632&...

iancmceachern 1y ago
Wow, for once Chuck didn't win
api 1y ago
His reaction is kind of the essence of populist backlash. People are told that the authorities have it all under control and the experts can be trusted. Then they discover that the experts are human, fallible, and sometimes incompetent or corrupt. Since the original message was one of unqualified absolute faith in the experts, the backlash is to flip over to believing that the experts are satan incarnate and pure evil and always wrong. It reminds me psychologically of the arc of an immature relationship. First they’re perfect, everything about them is perfect, they’re going to be your soul mate forever. Then you catch them in a lie or they do something embarrassing. Then you get the screaming breakup. Everything about them is the worst now and you never want to see them again.
- transcriptase 1y ago
  > People are told that the authorities have it all under control and the experts can be trusted. Then they discover that the experts are human, fallible, and sometimes incompetent or corrupt. Try People are told that the authorities have it all under control and the experts can be trusted. Then they discover that the authorities and experts, in the name of “the greater good”, actively suppressed debate, knowingly mis-represented uncertainties, pretended reports of serious adverse reactions to vaccination were not only impossible but simply fear-mongering from the uneducated, and then pressured social-media platforms to take down factual information when it threatened the official narrative. This without even touching on the fact that the WHO, who has one damned job, refused to even declare a pandemic and spoke against any travel restrictions or public health measures outside their lazy guidance until the virus was confirmed to be spreading out of control in nearly every nation on earth.
  - simianparrot 1y ago
    Having lived through this, observed it first-hand, read the studies, having dozens of anecdotal evidence on top from near friends and family, and still not able to even question the new mRNA platform publicly without knee-jerk backlash and demonisation, has done more damage to my faith in institutions and the medical community than anything else I’ve witnessed in my near forty years on this planet. Covid made crystal clear to me that we still live under tyrannical dogmatic rule devoid of scientific nuance because it’s “for the greater good”.
    - apical_dendrite 1y ago
      The claim that it is not possible to "question the new mRNA platform publicly without knee-jerk backlash and demonization" is just not accurate. There is a very well-known counterexample. Researchers identified that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an increased risk of myocarditis, particularly among younger males. This is rare - something like 3 excess cases per 100,000 doses. This has been studied extensively. Regulators required additional surveillance and it's included in all the guidance from regulators and physicians associations. The consensus has been that this is an acceptable risk, particularly since COVID itself is associated with an increased risk of myocarditis. Clearly you have a different view, but the consensus view is based on analyzing data from millions of patients across many countries, not on a "knee-jerk backlash".
      - logicchains 1y ago
        >something like 3 excess cases per 100,000 doses That was for clinical myocarditis in the overall population, but the rate of subclinical cardiac damage among young males was significantly higher, around 1% with abnormal ECGs post vaccination: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00431-022-04786-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00431-022-04786-0 .
        dingdingdang 1y ago
        Exactly this - vaccinate even a small town and cardiovascular issues will start popping amongst the neighbors, there is very good reason why there has been, and is, a public backlash on the MRNA vaccine usage among those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
- generativenoise 1y ago
  A large portion humanity seem incapable of embracing uncertainty and nuance and are over eager to embrace whoever is willing to peddle certainty and simplicity. As long as that is true it seem naive to believe that nuanced institutions can exist as dominant entities in human societies.
  - ashanoko 1y ago
    [dead]
  - inglor_cz 1y ago
    This is true, but it is also true that "official" communication often tends to project level of certainty that just does not correspond to the actual level of knowledge, and Covid was pretty bad in this regard, because in absence of actual knowledge, hard recommendations were being issued to people. Saying sincerely "we are not yet sure if Covid spreads by touching surfaces" etc. would have gone a long way. I am not even touching the dirty topic of "practise societal distancing unless you go to an anti-racist demonstration, because racism is worse than Covid". That alone probably sunk the levels of trust for a generation in the US, especially among people right of the center. Politicizing science is suicidal. Back to normal uncertainty. It was the same with various dietary recommendations. Older people remember several major overhauls thereof (are eggs fine or not, and in which amount?), and again, these were presented with a level of certainty that does not correspond to the actual - somewhat fuzzy - state of nutritional science. You can only do this so long before unleashing an epidemics of distrust.
    - AmbroseBierce 1y ago
      > Saying sincerely "we are not yet sure if Covid spreads by touching surfaces" etc. would have gone a long It wouldn't have, uncertainty creates general panic as well, that soon turns into disarray of chaotic recommendations among the masses.
      - inglor_cz 1y ago
        IMHO, "short term uncertainty" > "long term distrust". I don't like the "common people are too stupid to be told the truth" attitude (which includes uncertainities). It is both too smug to work, and unworkable in today's networked world, where those same people will notice really fast that someone is treating them like idiots, and react with resentment and loss of trust.
- Forgeties79 1y ago
  I understand why people do it, but in another way I don’t. If I get a car and it turns out to be a clunker and I hate it, I don’t just go “all cars are clunkers that I will hate” and swear off motor vehicles. People would claim I’m wildly overreacting (and rightfully so). And there are far more experts across a much wider spectrum than there are versions of personal motor vehicles!
  - api 1y ago
    If cars were people you might. We are more rational with inanimate objects. When it’s people a bunch of tribal in group out group stereotyping and group solidarity building through out group scapegoating programs take over.
    - Forgeties79 1y ago
      Like I said, I understand why it happens. But it’s also just very easy for me to sit down and kind of talk through why it’s not a good way to operate. There are definitely types of “experts“ and certain fields that I am incredibly skeptical of or maybe even dismiss outright, but to translate that into a broader “basically every doctor and government is lying to me“ as one accepts “outsider” opinions as gospel is just such an extreme reaction. And normally I wouldn’t really even bother acknowledging that that extreme stance exists. If you look hard enough you can find an extreme stance on anything. But the sheer percentage of the US population that has embraced an almost entirely skeptical/dismissive view of doctors and experts of any kind… it’s kind of horrifying
  - hippo22 1y ago
    If you bought a jeep and it was a lemon, you may never buy a jeep again. You just don’t view all cars as fungible. Do you think most people are capable of understanding why an expert could be wrong about gadolinium but right about vaccines? Medical advice is all seen as equivalent to most.
    - Forgeties79 1y ago
      I guess I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say here. I agree that this is the reality. It’s just wild to me that people can’t (or rather won’t) step outside of it for a moment and think critically when it literally can be a matter of life or death. I think there’s just too much incentive to trust random Youtubers who tell you everything you already think is completely accurate and anybody who tells you to do something different is not only wrong but actively trying to hurt you.
- _factor 1y ago
  I have no feeling in the top of my mouth after a “successful” deviated septum operation when I was a teenager. I was told it would resolve, it never did. I can’t go outside in mildly brisk weather without a tissue as it’s a constant stream, and I get debilitating headaches that are almost like migraines with the pain situated right at the bridge of my nose. Also found the procedure enlarged my sinus opening for no particular reason, something my teenage self wasn’t aware of. It seems to be getting worse over time, and I have localized pain in the area periodically. I can tell you from first hand experience, it will skew your view of medicine and the field, and I have plenty of MDs in the family. Some people just take it a little too far.
  - moffkalast 1y ago
    > I was told it would resolve, it never did. Ha, yeah, doctors say that about just about everything that's a bit abnormal just to get you out of their office. Was told similarly for two conditions I still have. It sounds better than "Uhh I have no idea what that's about, there's 68 patients waiting in line, good luck". The way I see it, medicine is about trying to fix a black box with absurd levels of complexity that does not follow any sensible design, where every body is not even arranged in the same way. All that without a manual and only rudimentary tools. They mostly just guess based on statistics and hope for the best, they have no idea what they're doing and if at all possible they try to let your body resolve the issue on its own because it'll do less damage. Still usually beats the alternative though (i.e. nothing).
    - netsharc 1y ago
      > Ha, yeah, doctors say that about just about everything that's a bit abnormal just to get you out of their office. Ha, "just keep waiting", knowing we all have timeouts that'll expire when we drop dead...
    - krisoft 1y ago
      I don’t know if people would be happier with a more truthfull “That sucks. We don’t have a solution for that. It might get better on its own, or not.”
- DANmode 1y ago
  Just that they always can be until proven otherwise. Assuming by default that (government|any) humans are working on a selfless incentive structure is arguably insane behavior.
jeffbee 1y ago
The fact that people are aware of the Norris's claims, but not aware that they dropped their suit without a settlement, is itself the subject of research about how celebrity publicity poisons the popular discourse regarding health care and science.
- pessimizer 1y ago
  Is it, really, when the claims look to be true? As somebody not aware of the claims or that they were dropped, what it makes me think is that no matter how wealthy and famous you are, or how legitimate your claim, you're doomed when going against powerful interests in the US medical industry. Even worse, people will comment under the study that says that you were probably right, under the comment of the child of the only doctor at the FDA to vote no on the treatment you were suing over, about how people listen too much to what celebrities say.

iancmceachern 1y ago

Wow, for once Chuck didn't win

api 1y ago

His reaction is kind of the essence of populist backlash. People are told that the authorities have it all under control and the experts can be trusted. Then they discover that the experts are human, fallible, and sometimes incompetent or corrupt. Since the original message was one of unqualified absolute faith in the experts, the backlash is to flip over to believing that the experts are satan incarnate and pure evil and always wrong. It reminds me psychologically of the arc of an immature relationship. First they’re perfect, everything about them is perfect, they’re going to be your soul mate forever. Then you catch them in a lie or they do something embarrassing. Then you get the screaming breakup. Everything about them is the worst now and you never want to see them again.

transcriptase 1y ago
> People are told that the authorities have it all under control and the experts can be trusted. Then they discover that the experts are human, fallible, and sometimes incompetent or corrupt. Try People are told that the authorities have it all under control and the experts can be trusted. Then they discover that the authorities and experts, in the name of “the greater good”, actively suppressed debate, knowingly mis-represented uncertainties, pretended reports of serious adverse reactions to vaccination were not only impossible but simply fear-mongering from the uneducated, and then pressured social-media platforms to take down factual information when it threatened the official narrative. This without even touching on the fact that the WHO, who has one damned job, refused to even declare a pandemic and spoke against any travel restrictions or public health measures outside their lazy guidance until the virus was confirmed to be spreading out of control in nearly every nation on earth.
- simianparrot 1y ago
  Having lived through this, observed it first-hand, read the studies, having dozens of anecdotal evidence on top from near friends and family, and still not able to even question the new mRNA platform publicly without knee-jerk backlash and demonisation, has done more damage to my faith in institutions and the medical community than anything else I’ve witnessed in my near forty years on this planet. Covid made crystal clear to me that we still live under tyrannical dogmatic rule devoid of scientific nuance because it’s “for the greater good”.
  - apical_dendrite 1y ago
    The claim that it is not possible to "question the new mRNA platform publicly without knee-jerk backlash and demonization" is just not accurate. There is a very well-known counterexample. Researchers identified that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an increased risk of myocarditis, particularly among younger males. This is rare - something like 3 excess cases per 100,000 doses. This has been studied extensively. Regulators required additional surveillance and it's included in all the guidance from regulators and physicians associations. The consensus has been that this is an acceptable risk, particularly since COVID itself is associated with an increased risk of myocarditis. Clearly you have a different view, but the consensus view is based on analyzing data from millions of patients across many countries, not on a "knee-jerk backlash".
    - logicchains 1y ago
      >something like 3 excess cases per 100,000 doses That was for clinical myocarditis in the overall population, but the rate of subclinical cardiac damage among young males was significantly higher, around 1% with abnormal ECGs post vaccination: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00431-022-04786-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00431-022-04786-0 .
      - dingdingdang 1y ago
        Exactly this - vaccinate even a small town and cardiovascular issues will start popping amongst the neighbors, there is very good reason why there has been, and is, a public backlash on the MRNA vaccine usage among those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
generativenoise 1y ago
A large portion humanity seem incapable of embracing uncertainty and nuance and are over eager to embrace whoever is willing to peddle certainty and simplicity. As long as that is true it seem naive to believe that nuanced institutions can exist as dominant entities in human societies.
- ashanoko 1y ago
  [dead]
- inglor_cz 1y ago
  This is true, but it is also true that "official" communication often tends to project level of certainty that just does not correspond to the actual level of knowledge, and Covid was pretty bad in this regard, because in absence of actual knowledge, hard recommendations were being issued to people. Saying sincerely "we are not yet sure if Covid spreads by touching surfaces" etc. would have gone a long way. I am not even touching the dirty topic of "practise societal distancing unless you go to an anti-racist demonstration, because racism is worse than Covid". That alone probably sunk the levels of trust for a generation in the US, especially among people right of the center. Politicizing science is suicidal. Back to normal uncertainty. It was the same with various dietary recommendations. Older people remember several major overhauls thereof (are eggs fine or not, and in which amount?), and again, these were presented with a level of certainty that does not correspond to the actual - somewhat fuzzy - state of nutritional science. You can only do this so long before unleashing an epidemics of distrust.
  - AmbroseBierce 1y ago
    > Saying sincerely "we are not yet sure if Covid spreads by touching surfaces" etc. would have gone a long It wouldn't have, uncertainty creates general panic as well, that soon turns into disarray of chaotic recommendations among the masses.
    - inglor_cz 1y ago
      IMHO, "short term uncertainty" > "long term distrust". I don't like the "common people are too stupid to be told the truth" attitude (which includes uncertainities). It is both too smug to work, and unworkable in today's networked world, where those same people will notice really fast that someone is treating them like idiots, and react with resentment and loss of trust.
Forgeties79 1y ago
I understand why people do it, but in another way I don’t. If I get a car and it turns out to be a clunker and I hate it, I don’t just go “all cars are clunkers that I will hate” and swear off motor vehicles. People would claim I’m wildly overreacting (and rightfully so). And there are far more experts across a much wider spectrum than there are versions of personal motor vehicles!
- api 1y ago
  If cars were people you might. We are more rational with inanimate objects. When it’s people a bunch of tribal in group out group stereotyping and group solidarity building through out group scapegoating programs take over.
  - Forgeties79 1y ago
    Like I said, I understand why it happens. But it’s also just very easy for me to sit down and kind of talk through why it’s not a good way to operate. There are definitely types of “experts“ and certain fields that I am incredibly skeptical of or maybe even dismiss outright, but to translate that into a broader “basically every doctor and government is lying to me“ as one accepts “outsider” opinions as gospel is just such an extreme reaction. And normally I wouldn’t really even bother acknowledging that that extreme stance exists. If you look hard enough you can find an extreme stance on anything. But the sheer percentage of the US population that has embraced an almost entirely skeptical/dismissive view of doctors and experts of any kind… it’s kind of horrifying
- hippo22 1y ago
  If you bought a jeep and it was a lemon, you may never buy a jeep again. You just don’t view all cars as fungible. Do you think most people are capable of understanding why an expert could be wrong about gadolinium but right about vaccines? Medical advice is all seen as equivalent to most.
  - Forgeties79 1y ago
    I guess I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say here. I agree that this is the reality. It’s just wild to me that people can’t (or rather won’t) step outside of it for a moment and think critically when it literally can be a matter of life or death. I think there’s just too much incentive to trust random Youtubers who tell you everything you already think is completely accurate and anybody who tells you to do something different is not only wrong but actively trying to hurt you.
_factor 1y ago
I have no feeling in the top of my mouth after a “successful” deviated septum operation when I was a teenager. I was told it would resolve, it never did. I can’t go outside in mildly brisk weather without a tissue as it’s a constant stream, and I get debilitating headaches that are almost like migraines with the pain situated right at the bridge of my nose. Also found the procedure enlarged my sinus opening for no particular reason, something my teenage self wasn’t aware of. It seems to be getting worse over time, and I have localized pain in the area periodically. I can tell you from first hand experience, it will skew your view of medicine and the field, and I have plenty of MDs in the family. Some people just take it a little too far.
- moffkalast 1y ago
  > I was told it would resolve, it never did. Ha, yeah, doctors say that about just about everything that's a bit abnormal just to get you out of their office. Was told similarly for two conditions I still have. It sounds better than "Uhh I have no idea what that's about, there's 68 patients waiting in line, good luck". The way I see it, medicine is about trying to fix a black box with absurd levels of complexity that does not follow any sensible design, where every body is not even arranged in the same way. All that without a manual and only rudimentary tools. They mostly just guess based on statistics and hope for the best, they have no idea what they're doing and if at all possible they try to let your body resolve the issue on its own because it'll do less damage. Still usually beats the alternative though (i.e. nothing).
  - netsharc 1y ago
    > Ha, yeah, doctors say that about just about everything that's a bit abnormal just to get you out of their office. Ha, "just keep waiting", knowing we all have timeouts that'll expire when we drop dead...
  - krisoft 1y ago
    I don’t know if people would be happier with a more truthfull “That sucks. We don’t have a solution for that. It might get better on its own, or not.”
DANmode 1y ago
Just that they always can be until proven otherwise. Assuming by default that (government|any) humans are working on a selfless incentive structure is arguably insane behavior.

jeffbee 1y ago

The fact that people are aware of the Norris's claims, but not aware that they dropped their suit without a settlement, is itself the subject of research about how celebrity publicity poisons the popular discourse regarding health care and science.

pessimizer 1y ago
Is it, really, when the claims look to be true? As somebody not aware of the claims or that they were dropped, what it makes me think is that no matter how wealthy and famous you are, or how legitimate your claim, you're doomed when going against powerful interests in the US medical industry. Even worse, people will comment under the study that says that you were probably right, under the comment of the child of the only doctor at the FDA to vote no on the treatment you were suing over, about how people listen too much to what celebrities say.