Thursday, March 12, 2015

Another Episode of Smells Like Bullshit (because, really, it's been some time since I've smelled it)

I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
Captain Renault in Casablanca 

I contacted the writer of the article in National Geographic to ask her why it had disappeared from the pages of the website, and she wasn't aware of it. She evidently contacted her editor who checked and claimed that "the article was dumped while working on the web design."

I'm going to be honest, here. 

It smells like bullshit.

All the other articles in the series about vaccinations are still up on the site (the one about our story was published on February 14, 2015)

The Anti-Vaccine Generation: How Movement Against Shots Got Its Start
published on February 6, 1915

Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science? 
published in March 2015 issue

Measles Are Back: Key Questions and Answers on Disease, Vaccinations
published January 23, 2015

and so forth.

I also can't find the conversation that was on the National Geographic Facebook page. Last time I checked, it had over 350 shares and thousands of comments, many of them the usual ugly.

Reader, what do you think?

I'm thinking about burning some books.


  1. No one wants reason or carefully considered actions. Division is king. No shades of gray.

  2. Of course it's bullshit. So it got dumped "accidentally" most certainly (**cough**), then undump it. This is 2015, that is National Geographic...are they saying that the article no longer exists anywhere in any form in any electronic file of theirs? they think we are that stupid? You know, you have a lot of readers. What would happen if all of us wrote to them asking where the article is? Got an email address we could use??

  3. What the hell does that even mean? Can't they bring it back? They ought to be able to restore it with the push of a button. If they don't, I'm with you -- it smells like bullshit.

    1. The more I think about this, the more bizarre it sounds. The magazine invested time and money in writing that article, and having photos taken, and presumably the editors debated and discussed their coverage beforehand. So it's not like the higher-ups wouldn't have been aware and would have been taken by surprise. I can't imagine why AFTER making those investments and publishing the piece, they would suddenly turn around and erase the whole thing. It's completely weird. And, if true, completely cowardly and indicative of some seriously poor editorial judgment. Heads would roll!

  4. Bullshit. But the real bullshit will be if they try to tell you they can't restore it.

  5. Steve is correct. It is truly bizarre bullshit!


  6. Deal Lord. Did you ever imagine you'd grow up to be such a source of controversy? So controversial in fact that NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC could not deal with it?
    I'm flabbergasted.

  7. The url still works and is clickable from a google search page, but it leads to a blank page. As an operator of a web CMS for multiple magazines, I'd think if you wanted to get rid of the story, you'd deactivate the URL and when clicked it would return a 404 error. Why would you leave the URL active but pointing to white space?

  8. I'm with you: your article has obviously been deleted to promote "the agenda". The National Geographic, esteemed image notwithstanding, has a reputation for this sort of conduct in other areas too.

  9. I went back to a blog post I wrote about Gardasil in 2013 just out of curiosity, and found that one of the links to a study I cited had been removed from the Population Research Institute's page as had the video I linked from YouTube where a gynecologist from Australia spoke to a group about her own study and the findings that alarmed her. Makes me glad I have a blog where I can keep my own content from being removed at the behest of the Powers That Be. Scary!

  10. Liars, they're just plain liars. Of course they can restore it - they're professionals.

    Professionals, (and I use that word lightly because they obviously can't be trusted) who are scarred of you.

  11. it's definitely a sign of something, the reasoning/scenario is like an absurd answer trying to sound believable - it just doesn't work. i notice rampant "neurolinguistic programming" techniques used in most places, to place a convincing angle in any questioner's idea that may suggest there is an issue with some mindless protocol (not realizing of course that NLP doesn't work with "divergents" but lets not go there), and then be able to believe themselves(not) better, and get away from the questioner without any truth being told. all in all the whole "cleverness" of it is really getting old imo, sorry for rambling

  12. The link and conversation are very much still on the Facebook page. I think if they were trying to silence you, this would also have been deleted.



Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...