3 ms·
Have to reply to myself to say that Lavigne's own denial is much more robust. It is linked in a comment below.
by evrydayhustling 4y ago
Have to reply to myself to say that Lavigne's own denial is much more robust. It is linked in a comment below.
- JadeNB 4y agoThe comment (by a user whose name ends with …HNtho): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34849006 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34849006 . The rebuttal: https://tessier-lavigne-lab.stanford.edu/news/false-allegations-stanford-daily https://tessier-lavigne-lab.stanford.edu/news/false-allegati... .
- bhk 4y agoActually, it smacks of misdirection to me. He portrays the matter as one of a mistaken theory or hypothesis that was later invalidated (how science works), which deflects from the key allegation of experimental data being falsified or fabricated.
- itronitron 4y ago"I have never submitted a paper without firmly believing that the data were correct and accurately presented." which is another way of saying... "it's not a lie if you believe it" To give them the benefit of the doubt though, if they realized the data was wrong they should have requested a retraction. That they didn't after being requested to do so speaks a lot, to me at least.