4 ms·
This is "investigation conclusions done wrong", specifically a case of "correlation doesn't imply causation" and "normalize your data" working at full speed. He
by otherme123 7y ago
This is "investigation conclusions done wrong", specifically a case of "correlation doesn't imply causation" and "normalize your data" working at full speed. Heck, it seems to me they are just publishing the data collected along with a 10 minutes "analysis": lets aggregate this, average that, some bar plots and ready to go online. And to add salt to the injury, they publish brand names.
This is the way "vaccines causes autism" nonsense reach the public and stay there forever. Even if a retraction, correction or refine of the conclusions is published in 6 months it will never have the impact of this release, and many will think "they are paid by the affected brands to say that".
- gilrain 7y agoNot a good analogy. "Vaccines cause autism" reached the public via a doctor straight-up lying and falsifying data so that he could profit on a new vaccine he hoped would replace the old one. Just another grifting charlatan, albeit one who is now responsible for inestimable damage to humanity.