In the interest of playing Devil's Advocate - even though it's a fine article, I don't think it's promoted particularly good discussion. Partisan politics in general means that people just dig in their heels angrily rather than have good discussion, and the Trump administration - at risk of falling into my own trap here - is far enough away from conventional wisdom on many issues, including this one, in such a way that their decisions and discussions around them sort of inevitably become partisan.
im nobody, i cant speak for whoever/everyone who flagged it. i try to stay out of foreign politics, but ill reply trying to share my understanding. Probably going to regret trying to help.
I'd say the article is extremely opininated and biased against primarily trump and rfk. the article is very far from neutrally reporting facts. extremely hyperbolic and alarmist; immediately visible in the title itself. emotionally charged and advocating for political action.
Its full of personal attacks, trump is unhinged insane, incompetent, dangerous, and irrational?
The article seems to be entirely rhetorical. There's no audience for it. The only people who will find use if it are those who dont need any convincing.
> I'd say the article is extremely opininated and biased against primarily trump and rfk
I mean, at this point an article would be biased not showing opinion against Trump and Kennedy. How else to discuss their unhinged rant on paracetamol and autism in an official press conference? I'm not kidding, I'd be suspicious of any article that keeps a very neutral language and seriously considers their unsubstantiated word slurry.
I submitted the article. I agree that much of the language and style is one-sided and partisan. If I could tone that down, I would. I submitted it because the outlined logical consequences stood out to me that I hadn’t encountered elsewhere—- the announcement itself, regardless of its underlying merits, opens the path to reduce vaccine access for all.
Another commenter here missed that point, thinking that people should just ignore what Trump says. The point is that what Trump says can be used to influence downstream policy in ways that might appear unexpected, but are certainly intentional.
>I submitted the article. I agree that much of the language and style is one-sided and intentional. If I could tone that down, I would.
It certainly crosses a line that makes the article rhetorical at best. It can never convince anyone of anything.
There's so much vitriol that even if there's facts in there to discern, I cant see it through the hyperbole and polarization.
>I submitted it because the outlined logical consequences stood out to me that I hadn’t encountered elsewhere—- the announcement itself, regardless of its underlying merits, opens the path to reduce vaccine access for all.
I dont see any of that there. Maybe it is, but they lose the chance to make these points.
Scientific reference needs to remain objective and seek to maximize the audience.
The section “Breaking up is hard to do” covers this without inflammatory rhetoric. By first declaring Tylenol to cause autism, it can be ruled out as a recommendation for reducing fever. With no alternatives to reducing fever, vaccines can now be not recommended, and therefore not covered by insurance, if there’s any chance of fever complications. The announcement is not really about autism, but providing a justification to portray the fever risk as unavoidable.
As expected my lead reply was downvoted heavily. Why do you think my speech needs to be hidden/censored by the polarized side? Besides maintaining the echo chamber.
Rhetorical polarized articles like this are the problem.
In the interest of playing Devil's Advocate - even though it's a fine article, I don't think it's promoted particularly good discussion. Partisan politics in general means that people just dig in their heels angrily rather than have good discussion, and the Trump administration - at risk of falling into my own trap here - is far enough away from conventional wisdom on many issues, including this one, in such a way that their decisions and discussions around them sort of inevitably become partisan.