[incomingpain]

>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.

[us-merul]

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.

[incomingpain]

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.