toxin gambit

Yesterday, I wrote about false balance in reporting on vaccines in the wake of the Disneyland measles outbreak. For those who've never encountered this blog, what I mean by false balance is when journalists, in a misguided belief that there are "two sides" (i.e., an actual scientific controversy) about the safety of childhood vaccines and whether they cause autism and all the other ills blamed on them by antivaccinationists or not, interview an antivaccine activist, advocate, or sympathizer for "balance" and to "show both sides of the story." The problem with that technique, so deeply…
Some antivaccine (and quack, but I repeat myself) tropes come up time and time again, and I've blogged about them time and time again. Obviously, at times this can get a bit repetitive, particularly when I've been blogging nearly every day for eight years. On the other hand, even after eight years, I still regularly come across new variants (almost always mixed with the old, naturally) of common quack and antivaccine (but I repeat myself again) tropes. After having written about such topics so many times over so many years, I sometimes wonder if I'm getting through to my readers. So I decided…