CNN's gutter journalism suggests that Autism is linked to not geting vaccinated (poll, accuse)

[golgi1]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/26/healt...udy/index.html

The specific title of the article is: Children with Autism Less Likely to be Fully Vaccinated, Study Finds

When it comes to being able to be critical of research and its presentation, the vast majority of people:

1. Are unlearned in research critique

and

2. Will only read the headline or first paragraph of the article.

This is normal.

This article's title purposefully implies that lack of vaccinations increases the risk of Autism.

It takes a knowledge of research critique to suspect that there is funny business in the artcile's presentation, and reading the article almost to the end to uncover what the real story is. The real story that is highlighted by my suggested substitute article title below.

To avoid such ambiguous implications, a much better title would have been: Vaccinations Frequently halted after Autism Diagnosis in Children, Study Finds.

Other than purposeful fake news and propaganda that is meant to spread false facts, there is no excuse not to use such a clearer and easily crafted article title.

CNN means to plant the notion that a lack of vaccinations is connected with the causal development of Autism.

Anyone with any science background would immediately identify this implication as logically nonsensical, but the general public will not so easily identify it as such.

And I say that as someone who doesn't believe in the vaccination theory of Autism causality.

The actual story is that parents of children with an Autism diagnosis halt further vaccinations at a higher rate, out of fear of a causal connection between vaccinations and autism. It's not that failure to vaccinate leads to a higher risk of Autism, as the article means to imply upon reading its title and first paragraphs.

CNN is a politically motivated fake news outlet and nothing more. Its fake journalists should be ashamed of themselves.

[Ohiogirl81]

That's not what that headline, nor the linked story, "suggests" and you know it.

Try again.

[golgi1]

Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81

That's not what that headline, nor the linked story, "suggests" and you know it.

Try again.

It is exactly what it suggests. And you lack an argument presentation.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by golgi1

It is exactly what it suggests. And you lack an argument presentation.

I'm not reading it the same way you are. Perhaps a poll is in order if you wanted to get how the typical reader might interpret the headline?

[WMak70]

This falls under " I am not a Doctor,but I play one on the internet".

[Ohiogirl81]

You didn't read the full article, sweetheart - exactly what you were accusing other people of doing.

This article's title purposefully implies that lack of vaccinations increases the risk of Autism

It does no such thing. The title is quite declarative, only stating the findings of the study - kids with autism are less likely to be vaccinated than kids without autism. Period. There is no way to intelligently squeeze any more meaning out of that sentence than what is backed up by the study's findings.

The article itself is quite careful not to draw any conclusions or connections - which you'd know if you'd have read it. Nor is there anything in the article that would back up this ridiculous claim of yours:

CNN means to plant the notion that a lack of vaccinations is connected with the causal development of Autism.

Try again? Maybe the third time will be the charm.

[CCbaxter]

Ah yes, the pseudo intellectualism of the right wing. Tastes great and less filling without all the facts to weigh you down. Also allows you use code words virtue signaling, or sjw instead of using cognitive reasoning and arguments of logic. But in a sweeping win for stupidity, when you point out how bad their fact free lifestyle is, they accuse you of ‘emotional’ reasoning and dismiss your conclusions with a smugness that frankly defies all reason.