Follow Me On Twitter!

Thursday, January 06, 2011

Liberals consistent? Of course not!

I recently came across this article being touted by liberals on a forum:

Click here for story: Retracted autism study an 'elaborate fraud,' British journal finds

The short story is a reporter wrote a series of articles bashing the publisher of the study that linked autism to vaccinations. Here is the basis for his findings:
The series of articles launched Wednesday are investigative journalism, not results of a clinical study. The writer, Brian Deer, said Wakefield "chiseled" the data before him, "falsifying medical histories of children and essentially concocting a picture, which was the picture he was contracted to find by lawyers hoping to sue vaccine manufacturers and to create a vaccine scare."
What? So no other study was done? Just a reporter making accusations.

Now understand, I am not saying that what this reporter is saying is wrong. He may very well be right and there may be no proven link between vaccinations and autism. But the liberals' lack of consistency on this type of thing is what galls me.

First off, I have no idea why liberals care if I decide to not have my kids vaccinated or not. For any reason. Maybe I don't trust the vaccine because of the substances used in them. Or I don't want to risk my child's life, as a percentage of people die from bad reactions to all vaccinations. Or maybe I don't want to risk autism, whether there is a proven link or not, in my child.

But liberals were spitting mad at this study. They were out destroy it. So when a reporter claims that the study is flawed, they jump all over it whether or not the reporter offers any real proof.

Now let's juxtapose that with the Climate-gate emails. If you've forgotten, leaked emails showed that the global warming "experts" were purposely manipulating the data to make the warming seem more extreme than it actually was. Remember, these were emails written by these climatologists themselves, in their own words. "We need to manipulate the data to tell the story we want to tell." That's basically what they were saying.

Liberals refused to believe it. Brushed it aside. Pretended it wasn't true. Didn't care. Dismissed it. Completely ignored it.

So for liberals, if someone is caught red-handed in their own words that isn't nearly as much proof as a reporter making an accusation. Of course, the truth is they'll believe whomever sings the song they want sung.

1 comment:

Daniel Noe said...

I call this partisan's disease. Accept anything that supports your story no matter how flimsy. Scrutinize and discredit anything that doesn't no matter how solid.