I wouldn’t call it pseudoscience, and your link could be “debunked” by people with opposing views; it would be more helpful to discuss the issue at hand rather than respond as such
how about a hypothesis? doctors prescribed cancer-causing cigarettes at one time, right? There are people raising concerns over the dangers of microwaves, that is all. We can have a discussion about it, or I can just call the view that “microwaves are safe” “pseudoscience”… but then there isn’t really much of a discussion.
That’s the problem. You believe the nonsense. You can’t provide credible sources because the nonsense is not credible it is unworthy of discussion. There is no middle ground. It is garbage.
This pseudo-science bullshit does not belong on Lemmy.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/medical-daily/
I wouldn’t call it pseudoscience, and your link could be “debunked” by people with opposing views; it would be more helpful to discuss the issue at hand rather than respond as such
What would you call it other than pseudoscience? A lie? Misinformation?
“Bullshit”, usually.
“everything that is wrong is pseudoscience”
how about a hypothesis? doctors prescribed cancer-causing cigarettes at one time, right? There are people raising concerns over the dangers of microwaves, that is all. We can have a discussion about it, or I can just call the view that “microwaves are safe” “pseudoscience”… but then there isn’t really much of a discussion.
Exactly. Because its a lie.
“everything that is wrong is pseudoscience” is wrong.
All fake science is pseudoscience is true.
That’s the problem. You believe the nonsense. You can’t provide credible sources because the nonsense is not credible it is unworthy of discussion. There is no middle ground. It is garbage.