Your quotes meme featuring Offit and Gorski are bang-on! Paired with your painting with the elephant it's a home run.
A few random observations:
Gorski, of course, is nothing if not an unsophisticated sophist. Well-recompensed, mind you, as is Offit.
That "Intellectual dishonesty at its most naked" is part of one of Gorski's article's titles, is surely the height of projection. Also, his accusations of "antivaccine pseudoscience" and "antivaccine intellectual dishonesty" are spectacularly ironic.
While you note 2009 as being the year of the York and Obomsowin deceptive graphs, it is probably of no interest other than numerical coincidence that Climategate (CRU email hacks) also took place in 2009. What is more noteworthy are the striking parallels between how the vax shills and the climate alarmists fiddle with the data and, more particularly, start their graphs at points in time that both disregard the bigger pictures and fit their highly deceptive narratives.
Thank you for the comments. Yes, I've thought similarly; there are striking parallels between the graphical presentations of the pro-vaccine crowd, and the graphical presentations of the climate change crowd.
The lie by omission seems to be the most prevalent mode of deception in these areas. I think that makes sense, it's safer and leaves more plausible deniability. Lying by outright fabrication is so much riskier for the one doing it which would explain why it is rarer.
The CDC in particular is usually extremely careful in their wording where they say something without actually saying it, leaving themselves plausible deniability. But when it comes to "misplacing" the arrow for DTP vaccine introduction on their graphs, I don't see that they have much plausible deniability there, save for claiming it was an accident (but an "accident" that's been happening off and on for the last decade, in which the misplacement always happens to the left on the graph to the left? I don't think so).
Data "errors" in the realm of such grand psy-op narratives are invariably in one direction only — which of course is their tell.
As for the "misplaced" arrow, they can't use the financial "fat finger" excuse, now can they? And the "slippery mouse" excuse is nowhere near as plausible or believable. (A guy's gotta find humour somewhere.)
Your quotes meme featuring Offit and Gorski are bang-on! Paired with your painting with the elephant it's a home run.
A few random observations:
Gorski, of course, is nothing if not an unsophisticated sophist. Well-recompensed, mind you, as is Offit.
That "Intellectual dishonesty at its most naked" is part of one of Gorski's article's titles, is surely the height of projection. Also, his accusations of "antivaccine pseudoscience" and "antivaccine intellectual dishonesty" are spectacularly ironic.
While you note 2009 as being the year of the York and Obomsowin deceptive graphs, it is probably of no interest other than numerical coincidence that Climategate (CRU email hacks) also took place in 2009. What is more noteworthy are the striking parallels between how the vax shills and the climate alarmists fiddle with the data and, more particularly, start their graphs at points in time that both disregard the bigger pictures and fit their highly deceptive narratives.
Thank you for the comments. Yes, I've thought similarly; there are striking parallels between the graphical presentations of the pro-vaccine crowd, and the graphical presentations of the climate change crowd.
The lie by omission seems to be the most prevalent mode of deception in these areas. I think that makes sense, it's safer and leaves more plausible deniability. Lying by outright fabrication is so much riskier for the one doing it which would explain why it is rarer.
The CDC in particular is usually extremely careful in their wording where they say something without actually saying it, leaving themselves plausible deniability. But when it comes to "misplacing" the arrow for DTP vaccine introduction on their graphs, I don't see that they have much plausible deniability there, save for claiming it was an accident (but an "accident" that's been happening off and on for the last decade, in which the misplacement always happens to the left on the graph to the left? I don't think so).
Agreed — on all points!
Omission is, without a doubt, the go-to tool.
Data "errors" in the realm of such grand psy-op narratives are invariably in one direction only — which of course is their tell.
As for the "misplaced" arrow, they can't use the financial "fat finger" excuse, now can they? And the "slippery mouse" excuse is nowhere near as plausible or believable. (A guy's gotta find humour somewhere.)