Teslag said:

---

Being skeptical of science is fine as long as people rely on the scientific method to do so.

---

Not being skeptical of science is fine as long as you don't repeat the same bull over and over like a parrot. Far more dangerous to trust blindly.

KidDoc said:

---

It's good.

---

Thank you! It amazes me the difference in taste between Peter Pan & Jif.

I would bet it's about 50/50 as to what people prefer.

There should be rock solid studies on whether vaccines cause autism, if for no other reason than to make people feel better about giving their kids the vaccines.

KidDoc said:

---

It's good.

---

What about the oil? Isn't it like palm oil or something they use? Still obviously bettter than many of the brands but not as good as the machine at HEB that turns fresh peanuts into PB

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

---

A totally expected response coming from you.

I have known lots of libs that talk and praise science only to find that they know very little about it. I asked one just the other day to give me the most recent theory regarding star system formation particularly how the Earth came to be.

His response was far far dumber than anything I ever heard. Basically said Earth was once a giant rock captured by the sun's gravity and over time friction and gravity smoothed it out to a big round ball.

All I said was, "really, friction in the vacuum of space" ? Your posting reminds me of that attitude.

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

---

You realize that Vaccines cause autism is because of a scientist right? Just like 6ft apart ...and and a diaper over your face would prevent a virus.


Scientists have become politicized, just like sport

Edit: Wrong poster.

This! Not enough blue stars.

And I'm saying this knowing I need a radical change in my diet.

GE said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

It's good.

---

What about the oil? Isn't it like palm oil or something they use? Still obviously bettter than many of the brands but not as good as the machine at HEB that turns fresh peanuts into PB

---

Great question. Another app I bounce stuff off is Bobby Approved. It is much more restrictive than Yuka but it is more data. As you mentioned it does have palm oil. The current evidence is leaning towards avoiding it like other seed oils as it has a bad ratio of omega 3:6 but you could certainly pick a worse peanut butter.

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

---

I'm going to pick on you here a bit, since you've given an absolute master class example of the issue of "trusting the science".

In your first example, you list moon landing deniers as science skeptics. I'll agree with you here, because the moon landing was a definitive event, and those who theorize that it was faked are confronted with multiple proofs that discredit their theory. The existence and consistency of moon rocks, the reflective mirror on the moon, tons of A/V data, first hand accounts, etc. A moon landing denier denies a specific event happened.

But in the second example you lump a hypothesis that vaccines cause autism into the same 'science skeptic' example. This is a hypothesis that has NOT been conclusively disproven. There are many theories seeking to definitively source the cause of autism and we still do not absolutely know what causes the mutations that result in autism. However, your lumping the hypothesis into the same category of a moon landing denier in no way disproves the hypothesis. Rather, it is the scientific equivalent of "nuh uhhh" as a rebuttal.

Thank you for so clearly illustrating the problem with the author of the article in the OP. Well done!

---

There also hasn't been a single study to show any relation whatsoever of vaccines to autism and the rise in autism is often linked to a better understanding and expansion of the spectrum for diagnosis. Not to mention the usage of the vaccines in question for 50+ years without these alleged issues.

---

So, the vaccines could have been causing conditions that were not recognized as autism for 50 years?

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

---

I'm going to pick on you here a bit, since you've given an absolute master class example of the issue of "trusting the science".

In your first example, you list moon landing deniers as science skeptics. I'll agree with you here, because the moon landing was a definitive event, and those who theorize that it was faked are confronted with multiple proofs that discredit their theory. The existence and consistency of moon rocks, the reflective mirror on the moon, tons of A/V data, first hand accounts, etc. A moon landing denier denies a specific event happened.

But in the second example you lump a hypothesis that vaccines cause autism into the same 'science skeptic' example. This is a hypothesis that has NOT been conclusively disproven. There are many theories seeking to definitively source the cause of autism and we still do not absolutely know what causes the mutations that result in autism. However, your lumping the hypothesis into the same category of a moon landing denier in no way disproves the hypothesis. Rather, it is the scientific equivalent of "nuh uhhh" as a rebuttal.

Thank you for so clearly illustrating the problem with the author of the article in the OP. Well done!

---

There also hasn't been a single study to show any relation whatsoever of vaccines to autism and the rise in autism is often linked to a better understanding and expansion of the spectrum for diagnosis. Not to mention the usage of the vaccines in question for 50+ years without these alleged issues.

---

Then why is it not diagnosed in adults who were never diagnosed as kids bc we better understanding and expansion of the spectrum for diagnosis?

RFK, Jr. would have been banned if he posted on the COvID board

So is that the hope that RFK will impose more government regulation? More government regulations on the food and pharmaceutical industries? The hope is for more big government getting involved in citizens' lives? Is that what some of you are asking for?

Some adults do get diagnosed with autism, particularly Asperger's Syndrome

The left's only god is science. They believe they're smarter than all the people who have looked to religion for millennia.
Once they pay to get the science to say what they want, they repeat the "science is settled" line.

Teslag said:

---

Some adults do get diagnosed with autism, particularly Asperger's Syndrome

---

DSM allows anybody to be diagnosed with anything. It's like a factory of diagnosis.

Nothing in science can be proved definitively, only up to a point that it cannot currently be understood any better. Good science should always ask questions and seek to come up with a better answer.

May or may not be found in a certain lab on West Campus:

TRADUCTOR said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Some adults do get diagnosed with autism, particularly Asperger's Syndrome

---

DSM allows anybody to be diagnosed with anything. It's like a factory of diagnosis.

---

Yes and no. I have teens lately coming in because something on tic-toc made them think they have autism. I ask about their early childhood development and it was always normal. That rules out autism per DSM.

Autism diagnostic criteria: DSM-5 | Autism Speaks

C. Symptoms must be present in the early developmental period (but may not become fully manifest until social demands exceed limited capacities or may be masked by learned strategies in later life).

Science has been wrong so many times it's not even debatable. Hell we have a full blown health crisis in this country that started due to the infamous food pyramid put out by science and adopted as factual.

MAROON said:

---

Science has been wrong so many times it's not even debatable. Hell we have a full blown health crisis in this country that started due to the infamous food pyramid put out by science and adopted as factual.

---

No kidding. The food pyramid is designed to make people fat, eating mostly carbs and downplaying protein.