Live data from Hacker News

You can't have a functioning democracy when candidates aren't safe

twitter.com

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: You can't have a functioning democracy when candidates aren't safe

#41
post #2

This guy's a nutter, but he has a point. His polling numbers make him a contender. Not providing protection is ridiculous.

Can we get past the stupid tendency to just slap “nutter” or other epithets on perspectives we don’t agree with? If I had a nickel for every time someone around me said something “nutter” that later turned out to have something to it… I’d have a lot of nickels. Imagine if just 3 years ago I said anything of the following. “Nutter!” - Russia will invade Ukraine. Sanctions and stupidity be darned. - Silicon Valley Bank…

I mean, to be clear, he is a loonie: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.

Like, it's not even just one weird belief; he has a wide selection.

Re: You can't have a functioning democracy when candidates aren't safe

#43
post #2

This guy's a nutter, but he has a point. His polling numbers make him a contender. Not providing protection is ridiculous.

Independents aren't allowed to be contenders. He won't even be allowed in the debates.

Perot was allowed in the debates. All you need is sufficient support.

Re: You can't have a functioning democracy when candidates aren't safe

#45
post #2

This guy's a nutter, but he has a point. His polling numbers make him a contender. Not providing protection is ridiculous.

Can we get past the stupid tendency to just slap “nutter” or other epithets on perspectives we don’t agree with? If I had a nickel for every time someone around me said something “nutter” that later turned out to have something to it… I’d have a lot of nickels. Imagine if just 3 years ago I said anything of the following. “Nutter!” - Russia will invade Ukraine. Sanctions and stupidity be darned. - Silicon Valley Bank…

> There is a real, but small, connection between myocarditis and vaccination in young men.

“Small, but real” is true for an infinitely large number of things for various magnitudes of “small”.

Re: You can't have a functioning democracy when candidates aren't safe

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should revisit that with a fresh perspective. Look into the indirect connection between vaccines causing gastro-intestinal problems, and autists with gut/biome problems. You can not scientifically state "there is no connection between autism and vaccines". Not even legally (look at vaccine court cases). Only from a "public health" and big pharma perspective is such a statement defensible.

Autism-related dietary preferences mediate autism-gut microbiome associations > Overall, microbiome differences in ASD may reflect dietary preferences that relate to diagnostic features, and we caution against claims that the microbiome has a driving role in ASD. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34767757/ A casual skim of the research literature indicates the opposite correlation - ASD itself may influence the gut bio…

I believe there is also a reverse correlation between vaccines and autism, in that higher-functioning autism causes vaccines (researchers with autism contribute to novel vaccines).

ASD being caused by gut inflammation or damage is called the leaky gut theory. Leaky gut is theorized to worsen or speed up symptoms of both ADHD and autism.

How do you yourself see a causal pathway from ASD to influenced gut biome? Small children being picky about their diet?

Both MMR vaccine and Covid experimental treatments have (rare) side effects of affecting gut biome. Both leaky gut and vaccine side effects are studied, without explicitly stating the causal chain and having one's reputation destroyed, but it becomes apparent when combining both types of research: vaccine leads to bowel inflammation. Bowel inflammation affect neural pathways. Affected neural pathways worsen or speed up onset and symptoms of autism.

RFK did not cite research as much as desperate parents coming to him with their stories. Research on connection between autism and vaccines is bad, not "bad" as in bad quality, but "bad" as in taboo and damaging to public health (which cares about vaccination rates more than individual health).

You can not state there is no connection, just that research indicates no causation, correct. The original research was not deeply fraudulent, nor had bad motives, but was legit scientific inquiry. There were some problems though with the ethics and methodology, but finding these was required to blackball the entire research. Wakefield's book is interesting for another perspective.

Some older research: prevalence of chronic gastrointestinal symptoms in children with autism and autistic spectrum disorders. Combine with literature study on modern research and vaccine side-effect research (preferably before Covid, since that made vaccine side-effect research similarly taboo).

Thanks for engaging. It is more common to be completely dismissive and not entertain perceived fools or quacks.

Re: You can't have a functioning democracy when candidates aren't safe

#48
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should revisit that with a fresh perspective. Look into the indirect connection between vaccines causing gastro-intestinal problems, and autists with gut/biome problems. You can not scientifically state "there is no connection between autism and vaccines". Not even legally (look at vaccine court cases). Only from a "public health" and big pharma perspective is such a statement defensible.

You're setting up a strawman. I have not made the claim you ascribe to me - it's a dishonest debating tactic. I can state categorically that no evidence has been provided linking the MMR vaccine with autism, despite RFKjrs claims otherwise, and that the total amount of claims of harms of all types from the MMR vaccine makes it a wildly extraordinary claim to suggest there such a link and that even if there were, give…

You can not scientifically state there is no connection between vaccines and autism. That is just a reminder of the limits of empirical science and the impossibility of proving a negative. It is important to be nuanced here and respect the difference: that no widely accepted evidence has been found, is something I also agree with.

> even if there were, ... be morally reprehensible and massively harmful to stir up fear about it.

Exactly. This is why "no evidence has been found" is a weak substitute. An unbiased look at gathering evidence could mean the end of your carreer and reputation. It is not science, but closer to politics, sociology, and PR for public health. Also why Wakefield was attacked so hard: the science itself was not so bad or harmful, but the interpretation and fears of the general public were.

If there are answers that can not be questioned, then science and scientific integrity is in danger. Attacking research for "amplifying bullshit" or "stoking fears", not by merit, that is immoral. Not giving a voice to desperate parents who come to you to share their story that no medical authority will accept, that is immoral.

As for parroting: try to find unbiased interpretations or objective word-for-word claims by RFK on vaccine harms. Incredibly hard. Consider the morality of supressing or strawmanning anecdotes or research.

Re: You can't have a functioning democracy when candidates aren't safe

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you say he's a nutter?

I mean, fill your boots: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr . He's into a wide variety of nonsense, though he's certainly best-known for anti vax nonsense (he was into it since before it was cool; on the whole MMR conspiracy theory train and so on).

Um, well I guess yer boots are "empty" then because you know that page you linked to is, quite literally, empty. It even says, "There is currently no text in this page."

Hahahah! :) I think you're making my point for me.

Re: You can't have a functioning democracy when candidates aren't safe

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably the vaccine stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#Anti-vac...

Well, RFK has his nutcasery, Republican and Democratic candidates have their own nutcasery (elections, 50 genders and so on). 2020 elections still managed to give us a president who may be a bit senile but is not super deranged. Provide protection to all viable candidates, hopefully citizens will do the right thing again.

I agree on the protection, but not on the nutcasery of JFK. Do you have any evidence to support that? It has not been conclusively proven.

Instead he has the cojones to take on the big issues, and fight them. That shows bravery and a willingness to engage on the hard stuff.

I'm not saying he's a good man or would make a great prez, but you can't dismiss it as "nutcasery"

Post reply on HN