Beyond the antivaxx stuff MAHA is either banal or fake
-
The most amazing thing is that we knew as scientific fact that smoking was bad for you long, long before it reached its current low levels. One is tempted to think cultural messaging and social factors that go along in that stew, played a larger role than the academic truths that pre-existed them. But I know that the smart people don't actually think that cultural messaging or cultural forces in general are important, as compared to academic truths.
-
But yes, the T2 diabetes thing can be hammered home, they can talk about blindness, amputations, comas, all that, they can talk about how it's epidemic just as much as being gross and fat (most often messaged in simply aesthetic terms). These things can make a dent in the culture, and "fat Matt" (a name I never call him myself, as I think it is mean) will have to find a way to accept that without complaining too much.
-
The cultural messaging re cigarettes was going full blast already in the 70s. At some point smoking became uncool among higher social status people. While it would be idiotic to say health concerns weren’t a cause of that, it wasn’t so simple as getting the message out on, say, MTV instead of PBS Newshour.
Honestly being in shape and eating well long ago completely swept through higher status US culture. Like smoking, it lags in middle America and among the poor.
-
If the findings are the same as all of the other studies, is it really going to change anybody's mind?
-
Depends on who's lying to whom.
-
@Jolly said in Beyond the antivaxx stuff MAHA is either banal or fake:
Depends on who's lying to whom.
A simple 'no' would probably have been easier.
-
Trust, once broken, is hard to regain.
It's why cheating kills marriages.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@Jolly said in Beyond the antivaxx stuff MAHA is either banal or fake:
Trust, once broken, is hard to regain.
It's why cheating kills marriages.
The bogus link between autism and MMR vaccines goes back decades. The lying and fraud started in the 90's, and it wasn't perpetrated by those who support vaccination.
I was only joking
-
4 years ago, I was told the science behind puberty blockers was settled. They were safe, reversible, and led to better health outcomes for kids with gender dysphoria. The vast studies supported allowing kids to socially transition and progress. If you don’t, then your daughter is likely going to suicide. It was science. Incontrovertible.
-
@Jolly said in Beyond the antivaxx stuff MAHA is either banal or fake:
Trust, once broken, is hard to regain.
It's why cheating kills marriages.
The bogus link between autism and MMR vaccines goes back decades. The lying and fraud started in the 90's, and it wasn't perpetrated by those who support vaccination.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Beyond the antivaxx stuff MAHA is either banal or fake:
The lying and fraud started in the 90's,
Yes, the 1790s. There were those who thought bloodletting was wrong.
All of our best scientists agreed that General George Washington was a candidate for bloodletting.
How did bloodletting contribute to Washington's death?
The massive blood loss, dehydration, electrolyte imbalance, and viscous blood flow likely contributed to Washington's condition.
The bloodletting resulted in severely low blood pressure and shock.
Some years later there were studies that showed the bloodletters might have been a little too enthusiastic.
Science can change. Don't be afraid to question.
-
What you're missing, presumably intentionally, is that the link was first conceived by a fraudulent study that faked it's data.
Investigation is fine and dandy, but the only link that's ever been made was due to a bogus paper.
-
But let's say the study again finds no link between vaccines and autism.
It wouldn't convince the hardcore conspiracy theorists, but it might persuade people who are on the fence that the previous science was legit, no? In that sense, it might be a good thing.
The two other potential outcomes are: The study finds a link, but the study was manipulated to find that link - well, that would be bad, I guess. The last outcome: The study finds a link and that link is real - I guess we would want to know that, even though it seems very unlikely based on what we know.
