There's plenty to not like about the Great Barrington Declaration. That would include that, arguably, technically, on denotative definition, that it was "eugenics-embracing," yes. But, Orac knows his #BlueAnon readers. I'm assuming, given his past tribalism, that him making that statement, and in the subheader, not body copy, of a post last week about Martin Kulldorff, that he was going for connotative meaning, and he is, of course, wrong. That's not to mention that there was no need to go there, and this was arguably gratuitous. Also, taking Wiki's definition, it arguably isn't even eugenics-embracing from a denotative stance. Great Barrington didn't explicitly claim this would improve the human genome; beyond that, given that the elderly are past reproductive age, unlike 1920s America and Nazi Germany sterilizing or killing the allegedly mentally deficient, that would not be a reproductive-futures difference. Thirdly, Orac knows that immunological resistance is only loosely tied to genetics; epigenetics and environment have a lot to say about disease resistance.
That said, going back to the main point? Again, per Wiki and beyond, connotatively, it's not eugenics-embracing at all.
(And, with that, having him put on blogroll watch list last quarter, he's now moving closer to the exit door.)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments are appreciated, as is at least a modicum of politeness.
Comments are moderated, so yours may not appear immediately.
Due to various forms of spamming, comments with professional websites, not your personal website or blog, may be rejected.