Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin
Arstechnica banning people for questioning vaccine data
14 points by destitude on Sept 23, 2021 | hide | past | favorite | 4 comments
Why has the scientific process and communication of the results of that data been completely destroyed with Covid and turned political? If you do not state unequivocally that the vaccines are our savior you are labelled an anti-vaxxer and banned from even technical sites like Arstechnica.

Mentioning testimony from the 8hr FDA conference call on Sep 17 questions why we don't actually have data proving the vaccine is safe for those under 65? (see https://youtu.be/WFph7-6t34M?t=15576). Providing this info labels you an anti-vaxxer and banished even when it comes directly from the FDA advisors.

Why does the US require people that are already immune to get a vaccine even though studies prove you are as good or better protected than those that got the vaccine? See British Medical Journal: https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101. Even though this is basic immunology knowledge this also gets you labelled as an anti-vaxxer.

Why do people always try to prove the covid vaccines are beneficial by saying your anti-body levels are higher after getting a covid vaccine or booster when this is NOT how you actually measure long term resistance? Anyone with basic human immunology knowledge knows that anti-bodies always drop over time. They are produced when they are needed to fight off an invader when they are detected. If anti-bodies never dropped from all the invaders we are exposed to all the time our blood would be as thick as molasses.

I fear for our future now that it is common to simply banish anyone who doesn't go along with the status quo.



I share your fear. We used to be able to agree to disagree after a discussion. Now, you must violently agree without discussion or accept cancellation.


Unfortunately, they don’t want to debate, so all discussion gets shut down. Even when you present ‘evidence’ to substantiate your claims.

I can only give people who reason otherwise, the benefit of the doubt if and only if they provide compelling evidence for everyone to see so they can draw their own conclusions.


That is the side effect of using someone's platform that does not belong to you. If you are passionate about a topic and wish to ensure that people can discuss it without forced redaction then register a domain, set up a forum and chat server and invite people to discuss. This of course isn't foolproof as you may find your hosting provider gets pressured to remove you so use a CDN and hide your origin servers. Be ready to change CDN's at a moments notice. If your platform is small then you should be able to keep it going for some time. If you become too popular then may be exposed to the same pressure that sites like Ars are facing. Assume ahead of time that search engines will also put your audience into a bubble or echo chamber so don't rely on search engines.


Arstechnica isn't a good source of information since 10 years or so. It had some really good reads before but quality already got worse. But at some point it plummeted to blatant lies and partisan idiocy I probably cannot really understand as a non-American.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: