@questionsareok.bsky.social
Isn't this article clearly the best refutation of Hillary Clinton's nonsense??
This has been studied for more than a century, in countless scientific papers.
It's controversial, yes, but hardly unhinged.
If we on the left choose our facts based on beliefs and biases and not science, we're no better than the anti-vaxxers on the right.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variabi...
It's controversial, yes, but hardly unhinged.
If we on the left choose our facts based on beliefs and biases and not science, we're no better than the anti-vaxxers on the right.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variabi...
September 4, 2025 at 6:42 PM
Isn't this article clearly the best refutation of Hillary Clinton's nonsense??
Reposted
This has been studied for more than a century, in countless scientific papers.
It's controversial, yes, but hardly unhinged.
If we on the left choose our facts based on beliefs and biases and not science, we're no better than the anti-vaxxers on the right.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variabi...
It's controversial, yes, but hardly unhinged.
If we on the left choose our facts based on beliefs and biases and not science, we're no better than the anti-vaxxers on the right.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variabi...
September 4, 2025 at 3:19 PM
This has been studied for more than a century, in countless scientific papers.
It's controversial, yes, but hardly unhinged.
If we on the left choose our facts based on beliefs and biases and not science, we're no better than the anti-vaxxers on the right.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variabi...
It's controversial, yes, but hardly unhinged.
If we on the left choose our facts based on beliefs and biases and not science, we're no better than the anti-vaxxers on the right.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variabi...