3 ms·
I'm sorry but this is really not science. This is the scientific equivalent of "and you'll never believe what happened next...". Do a search for "Pediatric My
by yehosef 9y ago
I'm sorry but this is really not science. This is the scientific equivalent of "and you'll never believe what happened next...".
Do a search for "Pediatric Myocarditis" and you'll see lots of results - it happens, unfortunately. I think it's far more likely that it's caused by a vaccination (http://www.vaxchoicevt.com/myocarditis-after-vaccination/ http://www.vaxchoicevt.com/myocarditis-after-vaccination/)
or one of the other causes mentioned here:
https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/897591-overview https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/897591-overview
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- lvh 9y agoDetailed reports of observations are important, normal portions of the scientific process. They're just the first step. Where is the line? Is a hypothesis with an experiment design not science? Is a negative finding not science? Is a positive self-reported study not science? Is a positive double-blind study also not science (because it hasn't been repeated)? Being dismissive of preliminary findings as "not science" is the same kind of attitude that cause people to not publish negative results, which is an incredible tragedy of modern scientific progress.