- Anecdotes as evidence
- Naturalistic fallacy (“natural immunity is better”)
- False balance (“both sides” even when evidence is lopsided)
- Anecdotes as evidence
- Naturalistic fallacy (“natural immunity is better”)
- False balance (“both sides” even when evidence is lopsided)
- False authority (non-experts framed as experts)
- Appeal to fear (magnifying tiny risks, minimizing bigger ones)
- Correlation ≠ causation
- Cherry-picking (one flawed study vs. dozens of high-quality ones)
- Moving goalposts (“if it’s not thimerosal, then aluminum… or DNA…”)
- False authority (non-experts framed as experts)
- Appeal to fear (magnifying tiny risks, minimizing bigger ones)
- Correlation ≠ causation
- Cherry-picking (one flawed study vs. dozens of high-quality ones)
- Moving goalposts (“if it’s not thimerosal, then aluminum… or DNA…”)
This isn’t reform. It’s sabotage. We must protect science. We must protect public health.
This isn’t reform. It’s sabotage. We must protect science. We must protect public health.