The article itself clearly rebuts the false claim. The submission title (which is plausibly similar to the article title, itself too long for HN submissions) however paints a different impression.
There might be some alternate titles extractable / smithable from the lede 'graph:
If there’s a lesson that I’ve learned about the claims of cranks, quacks, and pseudoscientists, it’s that too much is never enough in terms of their hyperbolic claims. For example, with respect to COVID-19 vaccines and cancer, it wasn’t enough just to falsely claim that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer. Oh, no. They had to cause “turbo cancers,” cancers so much nastier, fatal, and prone to appearing in younger people than regular boring, run-of-the-mill cancers. Nor is it enough to say that the vaccines have caused the incidence of cancer merely to have doubled or tripled—or even quadrupled—any of which, if true and provable with statistics and epidemiology linking vaccination to cancers, would be alarming enough. That’s not enough for cranks. Oh, no. Behold the latest claim from Myrna Mantaring, MT, MCI, MS, MBA, CLSp MB (ASCP), who “has more than 50 years of experience in the fields of Diagnostic and Research Laboratory Technology, Microbiology, Immunology, and Molecular Biology” (but apparently none in epidemiology), who has appeared with antivaxxer Polly Tommey (buddy of Andrew Wakefield) on CHD.TV to claim that there has been a “143,233% increase in cancers due to COVID vaccination” in the US
Among those:
- "Cranks, quacks, and pseudoscientists: too much is never enough" (64 chars)
- "It isn’t enough to falsely claim that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer" (72 chars)
- "Behold the latest claim from Myrna Mantaring" (44 chars) (flamey, though defensibly accurate)
I'd strongly hesitate to suggest any title which reiterates the false claim itself in detail, as that tends only to amplify the falsehood.
Even getting beyond the title problems, and despite an interesting article, I doubt the discussion quality on HN would be particularly good. The topic tends to attract those who are the topic of the article itself :-/
You might want to email mods to see what their suggestions/views on this are.
There might be some alternate titles extractable / smithable from the lede 'graph:
If there’s a lesson that I’ve learned about the claims of cranks, quacks, and pseudoscientists, it’s that too much is never enough in terms of their hyperbolic claims. For example, with respect to COVID-19 vaccines and cancer, it wasn’t enough just to falsely claim that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer. Oh, no. They had to cause “turbo cancers,” cancers so much nastier, fatal, and prone to appearing in younger people than regular boring, run-of-the-mill cancers. Nor is it enough to say that the vaccines have caused the incidence of cancer merely to have doubled or tripled—or even quadrupled—any of which, if true and provable with statistics and epidemiology linking vaccination to cancers, would be alarming enough. That’s not enough for cranks. Oh, no. Behold the latest claim from Myrna Mantaring, MT, MCI, MS, MBA, CLSp MB (ASCP), who “has more than 50 years of experience in the fields of Diagnostic and Research Laboratory Technology, Microbiology, Immunology, and Molecular Biology” (but apparently none in epidemiology), who has appeared with antivaxxer Polly Tommey (buddy of Andrew Wakefield) on CHD.TV to claim that there has been a “143,233% increase in cancers due to COVID vaccination” in the US
Among those:
- "Cranks, quacks, and pseudoscientists: too much is never enough" (64 chars)
- "It isn’t enough to falsely claim that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer" (72 chars)
- "Behold the latest claim from Myrna Mantaring" (44 chars) (flamey, though defensibly accurate)
I'd strongly hesitate to suggest any title which reiterates the false claim itself in detail, as that tends only to amplify the falsehood.