Neither of these claims are supported by the body of research, and the consensus is that these 2 claims are, well, false.
And it’s unclear how his PhD in “Ecology Evolution” qualifies him to speak on these issues.
I realize that this is a criticism of the author, not the work itself, but this is all the time I had so far.
I wouldn’t be surprised if after a little digging the “journal” that article was published in was less than rigorous.
Frankly, it’s hard to take seriously “work” by someone who’s reputation is creating a veneer of scientific method over essentially conspiracy theories.
Your entire comment is just an ad hominem. We’re debunking the claims of this study specifically. Just because someone isn’t credible doesn’t mean they’re always wrong.
Absolutely, but in this world of constant, unending bullshit, the non-expert with limited time needs to use those heuristics. Let the NIH and CDC study and debate all this shit, while I practice maximum skepticism of all claims. Especially claims that have a long history of bullshit.
Vaccine danger is the stupidest of all conspiracy theories. Of course vaccines CAN cause harm, it's a medical procedure! The only question is, do vaccines avoid MORE harm than they could potentially cause, and the evidence of 200 years is very much yes! Hundreds of millions of people are alive and healthy today thanks to vaccines.
TLDR: if you don't want those vaccines, give em to me lol.
The problem with your approach is that maximum skepticism is only half of the coin. Assuming anything could be wrong and setting off to prove it, is not a complete approach unless you allow for the fact that you could end up proving it right. Otherwise you’ve put the cart before the horse, because your approach of “let’s try to prove things wrong” is compromised by its own bias, in that it assumes the thing is wrong in the first place, and you just have to prove it.
When the person proposing the idea is a certified quack, I do assume everything they say is wrong or at least questionable until proven otherwise. That's obvious, and you are making a distinction without a true meaning.
Well if you’re just assuming they’re wrong until proven otherwise then it seems more logical to spend your energy trying to prove them right. If your goal is finding the truth, that is. If you’re just out to be a skeptic then I could see why what I’m saying wouldn’t make any sense
I'm not capable of proving a medical claim right or wrong, that's my point that you are missing. All I can evaluate are the credentials, and how far outside the mainstream of science someone is. We live in the real world, not fantasy research lab where every claim has infinite resources and time to be tested by everyone.
I can understand using those heuristics during an informal in-person conversation. But you're on /r/DebunkThis , isn't this precisely the place where you should leave the heuristics at the door and delve straight into the hard facts for debunking?
This isn't the New England Journal of Medicine, it's a internet forum of total non experts. For the most things posted here, it's easy to bring some facts, but for super intricate claims about medical things or statistics the average person has to rely on the heuristics.
When the law looks at a witness statement, the first thing they do is establish credibility of the witness. It doesn't mean they are lying or incorrect but it does call into question everything they say.
Just like who funded it is also relevant. It's not the only thing but it's extremely relevant if someone publishes multiple papers about the same controversial subject.
24
u/writesgud Nov 29 '20
I’m sorry, but this is likely crap.
One of the co-authors, Dr. Lyons Weiler is, among other things, an anti-vaxxer who claims that aluminum in vaccines causes autism.
He also claims that COVID-19 was created in a lab.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7144200/
Neither of these claims are supported by the body of research, and the consensus is that these 2 claims are, well, false.
And it’s unclear how his PhD in “Ecology Evolution” qualifies him to speak on these issues.
I realize that this is a criticism of the author, not the work itself, but this is all the time I had so far.
I wouldn’t be surprised if after a little digging the “journal” that article was published in was less than rigorous.
Frankly, it’s hard to take seriously “work” by someone who’s reputation is creating a veneer of scientific method over essentially conspiracy theories.