[MrZongle2]

Wait, how is anybody using technical documentation to support their position a bad thing? As opposed, say, to simply faith?

Doesn't this mean that such positions can be more readily confirmed or rejected, based upon the validity of the source material?

[belltaco]

E.g. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/politifact/a...

[kube-system]

As I said:

> out-of-context or misinterpreted

For instance, the most prevalent example of this is people taking reports from VAERS and presenting them in an article as if they’re assumed to be causal effects, rather than correlative.

It is quite easy to mislead people with highly technical information, because all you have to do is suggest an interpretation of the data that sounds plausible with an authoritative tone.

[yucky]

>the most prevalent example of this is people taking reports from VAERS and presenting them in an article as if they’re assumed to be causal effects, rather than correlative.

I think if the jump in VAERS reports since the vaccines were released wasn't ~2,700x, you wouldn't see as big of a deal about it. But you can cut that in half and still have an astronomically alarming number of vaccine adverse events reported.