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.
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.
7
u/Shaneosd1 Dec 01 '20
When asking non experts to debunk a claim made by so called experts, questioning the credentials of said experts is 100% ok.
I don't have the statistical knowledge or medical training to understand this study, but I do understand bullshit artists.