LIE #1. If a health study is “peer reviewed,” then it is evidence-based, reliable and true. Did you know that as much as 90% of the published medical information that doctors rely on is completely wrong? It’s true.
Did you know that as much as 100% of the statistics published on Natural News are made up on the spot? It's true.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion.
I really wish that these sites would back up their statements properly, because I agree with a few of the things that they say (although a lot of it, e.g. climate change being a lie, is just straight-up bullshit). If they wrote some articles that contained real information instead of sensationalist clickbait bullshit, it would be much easier to promote some of their views to other people.
These clickbait sites wouldn't exist if you stopped supporting them.
Wrong! Why are you wrong? Because
Natural News gives linked bibliographies at the bottoms of their articles. This means that you can go to other sites, and from those sites to still more sites, to confirm what
Natural News says.
They look very much like similar sites. Sites such as
truthwiki.org, conspiracy-theory based sites with similar clickbait titles and little scientific research. The few of them which are not like this are generally still opinion pieces (e.g.
http://ahrp.org/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/Rational Wiki details a different way of using the argument by assertion logical fallacy:
Alternately, the argument can be phrased as:
X has been asserted as true many times.
Things that have been asserted as true many times are true.
X is true.
If you can give me meta-analysis for several reputable studies suggesting that 90% of information doctors are relying on (very vague sentence there, I'll leave it open to your interpretation) are incorrect, then I'm listening. Otherwise, it looks like you're getting caught up in clickbait.
Not to mention that Natural News hate Bitcoin anyway.
