Anyway, it’s pretty clear you have some other reason than science behind not accepting you’re in the wrong here. The Nature study with its very clear graphs should be enough when it comes to science papers and there are numerous neuroscientists quoted in the other links I’ve given. You seem to believe “Slate” becomes the source when they quote one, but that’s not how sourcing works.
You haven’t given me a source other than Slate.
And look, if you can’t see how that argument generalises to antivax acceptance then you are part of the problem frankly.
I’m going to stop here because you’re dug in, and starting to project ad hominems.
No, because down that road of argument lies the validation of antivax views.
hahahaha no, most definitely not :D
Anyway, it’s pretty clear you have some other reason than science behind not accepting you’re in the wrong here. The Nature study with its very clear graphs should be enough when it comes to science papers and there are numerous neuroscientists quoted in the other links I’ve given. You seem to believe “Slate” becomes the source when they quote one, but that’s not how sourcing works.
You haven’t given me a source other than Slate.
And look, if you can’t see how that argument generalises to antivax acceptance then you are part of the problem frankly.
I’m going to stop here because you’re dug in, and starting to project ad hominems.