4 ms·
This is very interesting. Linking those that are suspicious of the MMR vaccine with people who used to think the world is flat, people who just stubbornly "don'
by relampago 12y ago
This is very interesting. Linking those that are suspicious of the MMR vaccine with people who used to think the world is flat, people who just stubbornly "don't want to be right," people who are dumb? Hmm, ok I'll bite.
The writer is acting like the debate has happened and is over, that the reader already knows this truth. This tone should drive suspicion of the actual goal of the writer. Or am I jumping to uneducated conclusions too?
As a reader I want to be educated but in this piece the writer doesn't tell me why the MMR vaccine is safe. I don't know if the MMR vaccine does cause autism but I'd like to at least hear evidence why it doesn't.
- sopooneo 12y agoI think the write is making an assumption (warranted, in my opinion) about her reader's knowledge level. She does not defend vaccines for the same reason she does not defend the spherical earth theory.
- relampago 12y agoYes, "in your opinion." I agree as well, all I have is an opinion. I'd like to hear a scientific opinion. I thought it was awfully presumptuous to leave out science in such an important issue. I guess we'll have to settle for another opinion piece masked as scientific fact.
- deciplex 12y agoIt's not in scope for the piece, as sopooneo points out. And no, you don't have the luxury of insisting authors lay out, in full scientific rigor, basic facts every time they go to make point. Vaccines don't cause autism. There is precisely zero evidence that they do. So, it is not really necessary to make the case for that when you're reporting on a different scientific study which merely takes this basic fact as a given, any more than I would have to justify 500 years of physics before telling you anything about the Huygens probe.
- relampago 12y agoIs one link to a study so much to ask for? If it's "basic facts" that surround this issue then why the controversy at all? I don't know the facts, as a reader I'm here to learn. It's a weak piece due to its weak argument. I say weak argument because it has no foundation to build off of, at least not provided by the author. All that is provided is a tone that to think otherwise is nonsensical and silly. Bad science throws out "nonsensical" ideas without testing them. If the vaccine is safe you have to give me more than, "if you think otherwise you're dumb." I share the fear over bad drugs. Alleviate fear with knowledge and facts, not name calling.
- deciplex 12y agoYes, it is too much to ask for, for the reasons I laid out. Expecting authors to spoon-feed basic facts to you every time they go to make an unrelated point, is expecting too much. How about you worry more about scientific consensus and less about 'controversy' that exists only on talk shows and in the drug-addled brain of Jenny McCarthy. If you want to know more about autism and vaccines, you can do the research on your own time. We have this thing called the Internet which should be of some use to you in this. In the meantime expect to be called out as a concern troll, for that is what you are.
- relampago 12y agoYou can have your dogma. I'll be a concern troll who doesn't make major life decisions based on trendy opinions. I will do the research. Thank you for the intelligent debate. Ideology is the enemy of free thinking.
- rdc12 12y agoWhy would it is an article on psychology and framing of a message, not about MMR vaccine. No one could ever provide evidence that MMR vaccine isn't linked to autism, only show the absence of evidence of a link or refute the arguments of a proponent. Both of which have been done to death with little achieved, thats what the purpose of this article is I guess