Science is a great basis for how to think. It is less good of a basis for what to think.

There's healthy scientific skepticism, but then there's also unhealthy pseudoscientific and contrarian skepticism.

Yes, science does prove things. The earth is, without a doubt round and not flat. Being skeptical of that fact is pretty much denialist at this point.

Muy said:

---

MJ20/20 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

"Science" exposed itself. Everyone should be a skeptic of the narratives we are force fed. They lied to us throughout Covid. They have lied about climate "science" from the beginning.

Actual science requires proven hypotheses, not mere conjecture and consensus, or the suggestion of consensus.

---

Amen brother. Science is a more fluid term than ever.

---

"I am 100% correct in my science until someone or something proves me wrong" - Science, Inc.

---

It's a conjecture until proven to match observations better than the current theory.

jrdaustin said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

science skeptics have been around for a while (lunar landing deniers, vaccines cause autism, etc.), it's just that the low trust types who fall for this stuff have mostly sorted themselves into the same party over the last 10 years

---

So what does cause Austism? Since you surely know, enlighten us.

---

Genetic mutation.

---

And what causes genetic mutation? Is it purely purely hereditary, or is it also possibly environmental? And if environment is a factor in increased instances of autism, WHAT in the environment is contributing?

Do we know?

---

No we do not. And it is ridiculous to bombard our kids with vaccines the way we do. They should be spaced out and given at a later age. There is zero reason to give them before kids are ready for school.

Teslag said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

That includes anyone who parroted "100% safe, and effective"

With no proof.

---

The proof is we are still alive. Oh wait, never mind everyone who got a vaccine died. Insert "my friends cousins brothers roommate go the Covid shot and had a heart attack" here.

---

Funny you should post that. The six people I personally know that "died from covid" were all vaccinated. I do not personally know a single non-vaxxed person who died from covid. I am not an anti-vaxxer, I am an anti-covid vaxxer.

Fact, every single person who didn't get vaccinated will die.

as will every person who did get vaccinated.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Science is a great basis for how to think. It is less good of a basis for what to think.

There's healthy scientific skepticism, but then there's also unhealthy pseudoscientific and contrarian skepticism.

Yes, science does prove things. The earth is, without a doubt round and not flat. Being skeptical of that fact is pretty much denialist at this point.

---

General observations are not what we're talking about.

Look! Teslag and MAROON are both right. Ain't none of us getting out of here alive.

dermdoc said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

science skeptics have been around for a while (lunar landing deniers, vaccines cause autism, etc.), it's just that the low trust types who fall for this stuff have mostly sorted themselves into the same party over the last 10 years

---

So what does cause Austism? Since you surely know, enlighten us.

---

Genetic mutation.

---

And what causes genetic mutation? Is it purely purely hereditary, or is it also possibly environmental? And if environment is a factor in increased instances of autism, WHAT in the environment is contributing?

Do we know?

---

No we do not. And it is ridiculous to bombard our kids with vaccines the way we do. They should be spaced out and given at a later age. There is zero reason to give them before kids are ready for school.

---

Spacing out leaves infants open to infectious diseases and does not seem to decrease the risk of adverse effects. I will happily vaccinate and care for families that insist on these unproven and potential risky schedules but the infant immune system seems to be more than sufficient to handle the current vaccine load.

Note that I'm talking about tried and true vaccines with proven efficacy over 15+ years. Not flu and COVID.

If I'm forced to pick which vaccines they should do (most parents insist on two shots a visit for some unknown reason) this is my hierchary of importance for infant vaccines. DTaP>PCV20>Rota>IPV>HiB>HepB

8. Dr. Casey Means. pic.twitter.com/CoTO8W8mfF

— Gabe Pluguez (@Gabepluguez) December 6, 2024

Healthy is a relative term for some folks.

taxpreparer said:

---

Look! Teslag and MAROON are both right. Ain't none of us getting out of here alive.

---

Nope, I have had just the right number of vaccinations to live forever. Not too many, not too few. I have the evidence to prove it!

The number of people who think chemtrails are real, that "they" can control the weather, that GMO food is bad, that all vaccines are harmful, that the Earth is flat, that the moon landings were faked or that the Earth is 10,000 years old is truly bizarre.

What's really crazy is the number ritaards that actually think there's a high number of people who think chemtrails are real, that "they" can control the weather, that GMO food is bad, that all vaccines are harmful, that the Earth is flat, that the moon landings were faked or that the Earth is 10,000 years old.

Einstein was skeptical of the science of his time, but he was not a science skeptic. Before the 20th century, the ether was a widely accepted explanation for behavior of light and Maxwells equations, but in the 1900s, some experiments cast doubt on this model. Einstein took these facts and developed an entirely new model of the universe. This is an example of science improving itself. Upon the realization that something was wrong, Einstein didn't waste his time belittling other scientists or calling them stupid and dogmatic. He got to work and wrote a paper that was later proven by experiments.

Scientists are willing to admit that they are wrong if they are presented with new evidence. However, science skeptics don't conduct experiments or present new evidence. They only cast doubt on previous experiments that they don't understand. Lots of them claim to know more than the scientists, but they refuse to participate in the scientific method.

Shouldn't all scientists be skeptical about all things science?

KidDoc said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

science skeptics have been around for a while (lunar landing deniers, vaccines cause autism, etc.), it's just that the low trust types who fall for this stuff have mostly sorted themselves into the same party over the last 10 years

---

So what does cause Austism? Since you surely know, enlighten us.

---

Genetic mutation.

---

And what causes genetic mutation? Is it purely purely hereditary, or is it also possibly environmental? And if environment is a factor in increased instances of autism, WHAT in the environment is contributing?

Do we know?

---

No we do not. And it is ridiculous to bombard our kids with vaccines the way we do. They should be spaced out and given at a later age. There is zero reason to give them before kids are ready for school.

---

Spacing out leaves infants open to infectious diseases and does not seem to decrease the risk of adverse effects. I will happily vaccinate and care for families that insist on these unproven and potential risky schedules but the infant immune system seems to be more than sufficient to handle the current vaccine load.

Note that I'm talking about tried and true vaccines with proven efficacy over 15+ years. Not flu and COVID.

If I'm forced to pick which vaccines they should do (most parents insist on two shots a visit for some unknown reason) this is my hierchary of importance for infant vaccines. DTaP>PCV20>Rota>IPV>HiB>HepB

---

I am curious, how many vaccines at one visit is too many?

The docs want to give my kid as many as 4 shots, and I assume that each one adds stress to the immune system.

A lot of the anecdotes about vaccine links to autism and also SIDS do scare me. And now there has been enough bad research exposed that I don't trust published data as much as I used to. Two major examples being research and recommendations on cholesterol, and the exposed fraudulent research on Alzheimer's. COVID protocols and hysteria and the many doctors and other health providers that denied proven treatments and prescribed other unproven ones.

We spaced out vaccines for our kids.

How many vaccines at once is too many?

Covid and the messaging put forth completely wrecked my trust in bureaucrats, and somehow I'm viewed as the problem. Prior to Covid I thought I had a healthy level of skepticism, now it's all I have.

oh no said:

---

What's really crazy is the number ritaards that actually think there's a high number of people who think chemtrails are real, that "they" can control the weather, that GMO food is bad, that all vaccines are harmful, that the Earth is flat, that the moon landings were faked or that the Earth is 10,000 years old.

---

Depends on what you think is a "high number". I'd say at least 30 percent believe in at least one of those, likely higher.

Just spending time at my kids' high school for events there are so many more overweight kids than their used to be. Especially here in San Antonio when we see a cross section of demographics the Hispanic kids are much more overweight on average. Including those doing physical activity like marching band, dance team, or flag guard.

A lot of high school and college aged girls are not necessarily fat but are just "bigger" I don't know how to say that exactly.

There is something terribly wrong in these kids diets and the parents are no better. I myself am feeling the strain of middle age and a slowing metabolism but am basically addressing nutrition and home cooking, what used to be a hobby and more as a mission these days for health and economic reasons.

Like sure my kids can have cookies but i will bake them from scratch without chemicals. We eat home cooked dinner at least 6 nights per week. I bring leftovers to work and my kids eat homemade lunches. Our son is a picky eater but prefers home cooking so I am lucky there.

I don't know what else to do except teach good habits and set them up to feed themselves as adults.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Science is a great basis for how to think. It is less good of a basis for what to think.

There's healthy scientific skepticism, but then there's also unhealthy pseudoscientific and contrarian skepticism.

Yes, science does prove things. The earth is, without a doubt round and not flat. Being skeptical of that fact is pretty much denialist at this point.

---

oh no said:

---

What's really crazy is the number ritaards that actually think there's a high number of people who think chemtrails are real, that "they" can control the weather, that GMO food is bad, that all vaccines are harmful, that the Earth is flat, that the moon landings were faked or that the Earth is 10,000 years old.

---

You forgot about Q and the Kraken.

Regardless of that, I say, Bless Their Hearts.

Emotional Support Cobra said:

---

Just spending time at my kids' high school for events there are so many more overweight kids than their used to be. Especially here in San Antonio when we see a cross section of demographics the Hispanic kids are much more overweight on average. Including those doing physical activity like marching band, dance team, or flag guard.

A lot of high school and college aged girls are not necessarily fat but are just "bigger" I don't know how to say that exactly.

There is something terribly wrong in these kids diets and the parents are no better. I myself am feeling the strain of middle age and a slowing metabolism but am basically addressing nutrition and home cooking, what used to be a hobby and more as a mission these days for health and economic reasons.

Like sure my kids can have cookies but i will bake them from scratch without chemicals. We eat home cooked dinner at least 6 nights per week. I bring leftovers to work and my kids eat homemade lunches. Our son is a picky eater but prefers home cooking so I am lucky there.

I don't know what else to do except teach good habits and set them up to feed themselves as adults.

---

Yeah nutrition science has been heavily politicized. The Food Pyramid basically guarantees obesity if you follow it because of all the high carb grains at the base. That and the sugar and artificial ingredients promoted by soda and candy and snack companies doesn't help.

LMAO.

Science.

There's good reason for skepticism

In the name of "science" we have

Trillions wasted on climate change
Government regulations totally stifling our business
A world wide rresry thst forces the US to pay billions while other countries take our money and INCREASE their pollution
Lawsuits against our major energy companies
COVID vaccine mandates
Quarantines of our dying in the hospitals such that folks couldn't comfort their dying family members
Banning of proven successful medicines in order to promote BS treatments

This latest "science" BS is just that. BS.

bmks270 said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

science skeptics have been around for a while (lunar landing deniers, vaccines cause autism, etc.), it's just that the low trust types who fall for this stuff have mostly sorted themselves into the same party over the last 10 years

---

So what does cause Austism? Since you surely know, enlighten us.

---

Genetic mutation.

---

And what causes genetic mutation? Is it purely purely hereditary, or is it also possibly environmental? And if environment is a factor in increased instances of autism, WHAT in the environment is contributing?

Do we know?

---

No we do not. And it is ridiculous to bombard our kids with vaccines the way we do. They should be spaced out and given at a later age. There is zero reason to give them before kids are ready for school.

---

Spacing out leaves infants open to infectious diseases and does not seem to decrease the risk of adverse effects. I will happily vaccinate and care for families that insist on these unproven and potential risky schedules but the infant immune system seems to be more than sufficient to handle the current vaccine load.

Note that I'm talking about tried and true vaccines with proven efficacy over 15+ years. Not flu and COVID.

If I'm forced to pick which vaccines they should do (most parents insist on two shots a visit for some unknown reason) this is my hierchary of importance for infant vaccines. DTaP>PCV20>Rota>IPV>HiB>HepB

---

I am curious, how many vaccines at one visit is too many?

The docs want to give my kid as many as 4 shots, and I assume that each one adds stress to the immune system.

A lot of the anecdotes about vaccine links to autism and also SIDS do scare me. And now there has been enough bad research exposed that I don't trust published data as much as I used to. Two major examples being research and recommendations on cholesterol, and the exposed fraudulent research on Alzheimer's. COVID protocols and hysteria and the many doctors and other health providers that denied proven treatments and prescribed other unproven ones.

We spaced out vaccines for our kids.

How many vaccines at once is too many?

---

I think you hit on some good points. Regarding SIDS, funny how 'SADS' emerged shortly after the initial COVID vax rollout. Very curious. Should warrant a fresh look at SIDS.

And the comment about how many is too many is interesting. Infants receive so many vaccines before a parent 'knows' their child, making it really difficult to detect a personality/cognitive change. Also, 'a' vaccine might not be bad, but what's the cumulative effect of so many vaccines? Personally, I'm suspicious of aluminum. Vaccines contain aluminum and aluminum is believed to accumulate in the brain, so what is this doing to babies? Aluminum is linked to dementia among other things, and there's even a cottage industry of aluminum-free products (like deodorant).

Another anecdote... during a relatively recent child custody case, a judge ordered children who had not been vaccinated - ever - to be vaccinated. One child (normal, healthy 5 yo) received 18 vaccines in the same session. He was rushed to ICU, survived, but now has autism and wears diapers.

We should never be blind believers in one side or another, rather critical thinkers and question things when they don't add up. For childhood vaccines, it sure does seem like it's too many, too closely, and too soon.

It is not the science.. It is the science abusers.

bmks270 said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

science skeptics have been around for a while (lunar landing deniers, vaccines cause autism, etc.), it's just that the low trust types who fall for this stuff have mostly sorted themselves into the same party over the last 10 years

---

So what does cause Austism? Since you surely know, enlighten us.

---

Genetic mutation.

---

And what causes genetic mutation? Is it purely purely hereditary, or is it also possibly environmental? And if environment is a factor in increased instances of autism, WHAT in the environment is contributing?

Do we know?

---

No we do not. And it is ridiculous to bombard our kids with vaccines the way we do. They should be spaced out and given at a later age. There is zero reason to give them before kids are ready for school.

---

Spacing out leaves infants open to infectious diseases and does not seem to decrease the risk of adverse effects. I will happily vaccinate and care for families that insist on these unproven and potential risky schedules but the infant immune system seems to be more than sufficient to handle the current vaccine load.

Note that I'm talking about tried and true vaccines with proven efficacy over 15+ years. Not flu and COVID.

If I'm forced to pick which vaccines they should do (most parents insist on two shots a visit for some unknown reason) this is my hierchary of importance for infant vaccines. DTaP>PCV20>Rota>IPV>HiB>HepB

---

I am curious, how many vaccines at one visit is too many?

The docs want to give my kid as many as 4 shots, and I assume that each one adds stress to the immune system.

A lot of the anecdotes about vaccine links to autism and also SIDS do scare me. And now there has been enough bad research exposed that I don't trust published data as much as I used to. Two major examples being research and recommendations on cholesterol, and the exposed fraudulent research on Alzheimer's. COVID protocols and hysteria and the many doctors and other health providers that denied proven treatments and prescribed other unproven ones.

We spaced out vaccines for our kids.

How many vaccines at once is too many?

---

That is an excellent but unanswered question at this time. The other side of the question is what diseases do you want to leave an infant vulnerable to while Spacing vaccines? At this time the main risk in USA is strep pneumonia and whooping cough and measles. Measles is not given until 12 months (unless traveling to an endemic area). So, as i mentioned above, if you are not comfortable with the ACIP schedule that is largely unchanged since 2009 or so, prioritize the higher risk infections that are still circulating.

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

Einstein was skeptical of the science of his time, but he was not a science skeptic. Before the 20th century, the ether was a widely accepted explanation for behavior of light and Maxwells equations, but in the 1900s, some experiments cast doubt on this model. Einstein took these facts and developed an entirely new model of the universe. This is an example of science improving itself. Upon the realization that something was wrong, Einstein didn't waste his time belittling other scientists or calling them stupid and dogmatic. He got to work and wrote a paper that was later proven by experiments.

Scientists are willing to admit that they are wrong if they are presented with new evidence. However, science skeptics don't conduct experiments or present new evidence. They only cast doubt on previous experiments that they don't understand. Lots of them claim to know more than the scientists, but they refuse to participate in the scientific method.

---

If all the scientists of that era were screaming "the science is settled" so that Einstein could be labelled as a science denier to keep him in his place, and a perpetuator of misinformation to take away his credibility and remove any potential for him to do all the great works that he accomplished, then I'm sure he wouldve handled things differently. Back then science was meant to be challenged (as it should be, by definition), and those being challenged knew that that was part of the process. Now, you get screamed down and threatened by the manipulated masses.

And to add to the response to your post, when science has been politicized, and we're obviously being lied to about fake science so that we do their bidding, then the skeptics might not necessarily know more than those demanding compliance, but they know more than what they are told to believe. Someone needs to stand up to them, if those actually in science are too scared or manipulated or brainwashed to even question the obvious lies.

Nice try at a clever take though.

MJ20/20 said:

---

8. Dr. Casey Means. pic.twitter.com/CoTO8W8mfF

— Gabe Pluguez (@Gabepluguez) December 6, 2024

Healthy is a relative term for some folks.

---

Some of this is alarmist crap that is based on how things are measured now vs then.

The diagnosis of autism has gotten way wider. My brother was not diagnosed with ASD until he was 45. He didn't change, the way AUD is measured was.

Pre-diabetes is a new thing. With all the sugar in the US diet, it's not surprising that 50% of Americans have higher than normal blood sugar, just not high enough to be a disease.

We detect cancer way better now.

Heavy THC abuse can cause young-onset dementia. So can alcoholism.

Obesity measurement has changed.

Now, Americans are, generally fat. Too fat. That is bad. But it is better to have honest data, IMO, than scare tactics. People don't believe scare tactics anymore, because we don't trust our institutions anymore.

Better to go with thoughtful, normalized data, and the methods used to normalize it.