A methodological autopsy of flawed research that contradicts decades of rigorous evidence

A good dissection of bullshit “science” about vaccines - this dissection also highlights good general points to think about when applying critical thinking to any such out of left field “scientific” claims on the internet or those blathering dolts on TV news segments.

https://theunbiasedscipod.substack.com/p/anatomy-of-a-failure-why-this-latest

Dig into things before promoting them on social media.

  • lukewarm_ozone@lemmy.todayEnglish
    11·
    2 days ago
    1. The definition I mentioned is from wikipedia, I didn’t just make it up.
    2. Your argument doesn’t actually follow - your definition mentions “failure of health”, which is so vague as to cover anything, yet for some reason you argue that it matters that it’s not infectious. Hereditary diseases are called that despite not being infectious, so clearly it’s not as clear-cut as this.
    3. But actually, fair enough - I don’t think it matters whether something “is a disease”, so I shouldn’t have mentioned it - my argument doesn’t rely on it in any way.
    • JigglySackles@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      16 hours ago

      Wikipedia is not a fully reliable source. It’s a great collection of knowledge but it’s not authoritative. You shouldn’t rely on it for everything.