this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2025
34 points (97.2% liked)

Skeptic

1372 readers
1 users here now

A community for Scientific Skepticism:

Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism, sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence.

Do not confuse this with General Skepticism, Philosophical Skepticism, or Denialism.

Things we like:

Things we don't like:

Other communities of interest:

"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." -David Hume

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
acosmichippo@lemmy.world
kabe@lemmy.world
34
Anatomy of a Failure: Why This Latest Vaccine-Autism Paper is Dead Wrong (theunbiasedscipod.substack.com)
submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by NoMadLadNZ to c/skeptic@lemmy.world
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JigglySackles@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

A "disease" is a condition that affects one adversely.

Your definition of disease is patently false.

an) illness of people, animals, plants, etc., caused by infection or a failure of health rather than by an accident.

If vaccines were the cause, which they are not, then it still couldn't be called a disease. It is not infectious, nor communicable, nor spreadable by any means other than genetic mutations presenting during fetal formulation.

**Autism is not a disease. **

[–] lukewarm_ozone@lemmy.today 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)
  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.world 1 points 2 days 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.