3 ms·
Nah, the truly sad part is that the study had to be done AGAIN when the original paper suggesting a link was withdrawn decades ago and other studies have dispro
by apothegm 1y ago
Nah, the truly sad part is that the study had to be done AGAIN when the original paper suggesting a link was withdrawn decades ago and other studies have disproven any link over and over and over again.
That funding could have been used for something that actually advanced our knowledge. And instead it got sucked into the bottomless pit of trying to disprove something claimed by people who aren’t interested in proof.
- kstrauser 1y agoWhile I sympathize with the sentiment, I disagree with the details. I don’t think it’s wasted effort to reproduce results. There was a possibility they found a different outcome than what we expect, and then we’d have something new and interesting to learn about. As a made up example, maybe they’d find that autism turns out to be higher among the population groups more likely to have their kids vaccinated or something unexpected like that, and then we could try to figure out what caused that new observation. It’s shocking how often basic science turns up something wholly unexpected and new and weird and interesting. Edit: To be super clear, I don’t buy the antivax line for a second. Nor did I remotely believe there was a link between vaccines and autism. We know there isn’t. But science means sometimes you investigate what you’re pretty sure you know just to be certain.
- myvoiceismypass 1y agoNone of your imaginary hypothetical scenarios would remotely satisfy / be okay with the anti vaxx movement. It’s okay to say “Anti Science”.
- conception 1y agoHow many times do they have to be reproduced before we Say “oh maybe we’re done testing that one?” A dozen? A thousand?