if your argument cannot afford to acknowledge better evidence, then you do not have a viable argument.
If your argument can’t survive without shutting its eyes to vast amounts of much stronger, contradicting research – and if your argument can only exist by ignoring vital pieces of information – you don’t have an argument at all. You have a hunch. Wholly unmoored from reality, and dissolving on contact with scrutiny.
↑
ごもっとも
反ワクは主張を通したいならエビデンスを積み上げるしかない
世界中から出てくるワクチン有効性や安全性を示すリサーチから目を背けることなくコツコツとね
捏造だの御用論文だ似非科学だの、そんな言葉を吐いた時点で負けだよ