These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence based through the use of credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias, but adhere to scientific principles. See all Pro-Science sources.
- Overall, we rate Skeptical Raptor a Pro-Science source based on excellent sourcing and a clear adherence to the consensus of science. However, without biographical information, by default, we must rate this source Mixed for factual reporting. If this person would reveal themselves, they would earn a High Factual rating based on a strong factual website.
Factual Reporting: MIXED
World Press Freedom Rank: Canada 18/180
Founded in 2012, the Skeptical Raptor is a website/blog that debunks pseudo-scientific misinformation. Although they have an about page, they unfortunately, do not list who the Skeptical Raptor is, or who owns the website. This is a huge negative for credibility. According to a domain search this website originates from Canada (not verified).
Funded by / Ownership
Skeptical Raptor does not disclose ownership and they appear to be funded solely through online advertising.
Analysis / Bias
In review, The Skeptical Raptor reports on science news, in particular pseudoscience, which they debunk with evidence. For example, in this article Gardasil facts – debunking myths about HPV vaccine safety and efficacy, there is excellent sourcing to the CDC. In another article that clearly use emotional wording: Anti-vaccine terrorists – maybe it is the time to call them that, there is excellent sourcing to credible media such as Pubmed and Medscape. Skeptical Raptor also has a science based search engine specifically for vaccines.
A factual search reveals they have not failed a fact check.
Overall, we rate Skeptical Raptor a Pro-Science source based on excellent sourcing and a clear adherence to the consensus of science. However, without biographical information, by default we must rate this source Mixed for factual reporting. If this person would reveal themselves they would earn a High Factual rating based on a strong factual website. (D. Van Zandt 3/5/2019)