{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","title":"freemymind 🇨🇭 wrote","author_name":"freemymind 🇨🇭 (npub1kl…0u2uq)","author_url":"https://nostr.now/npub1kl8e7s48j6cfr6zrmn53n5l0fsxustszj3fwmu9ahn0tnm9e8euq80u2uq","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.now","html":"\u003e I did say \"likely\" (not definitively) but the importance of the statement was the second part.\n\nI think it is far from accurate to call it likely. Offer evidence we can both look at, where it shows that it is likely to be correlated. Otherwise at least admit, that this point of yours was probably unwise.\n\nAnd when you put a list of statements, you can not claim the overall statement to hold true, when I can disproof one.\n\nEvery statement of a note needs to hold true, for a not to be true. This is simple logic. Nothing I invented.\n\nAnd the logic of falsifying statements does not depend on incentives. A hypothesis can be falsified, no matter what incentives are. And even when someone had all incentives to disqualify the correlation of vaccines and cancer.\n\nOne good paper, that flawlessly offers evidence, that the causality is probable offers a foundation. But this single paper does not yet exist.\n\nAnd you mentioning authism shows, that you really like cherrypicking conspiracy theiries, that were falsified strongly.\n\nA hypothesis that is falsified could only become true, whev the falsifications are proofen methological issues and a study without methological flaws proofing the hypothesis true.\n\nBut this is not existant."}