• @P1k1e@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      772 days ago

      Anti vaxers cherry pick information to state their claims are correct. Therefore they’re super good at it

      • @MyDarkestTimeline01@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        232 days ago

        Ahhhhhhhhhh. That would make sense. My mind initially was asking if there was some form of an extract or essential oil that came from cherries that they claimed was a wonder anti drug.

        • @angrystego@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          101 day ago

          I thought the death rate among antivaxers was so high that they provide regular fertilization for the trees.

          • Pot8o
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 day ago

            That was my thought too. Nothing like a bit of blood and bone to get plants growing. Something, something…it’s what plants crave!

      • @gnutrino@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        There’s also a sort of second level to the joke in that reporting on the results for a single orchard is in itself cherry picking.

          • @tetris11@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -52 days ago

            Yeah, but if your results are only a biased subset of your total gamut (vaccers + anti-vaccers) then 340% is still an astonishing result when only taking your preferred group.

            It actually does build credibility that the group you’re biased towards had the most significant result.

            If the total gains were 1000% including contributions from both groups, then yes I can understand the point the post is making (340 from anti-vaccers, 660 from vaccers, clear cherry-picking).

            But 340 is already an incredibly high number, so it sort of weakens the post, if you catch my meaning