4 ms·

By far the most correct way to contest a scientific study is to provide a new scientific investigation that reaches different conclusions. If those claims are

By far the most correct way to contest a scientific study is to provide a new scientific investigation that reaches different conclusions. If those claims are true then I'm sure it won't be difficult to conduct a proper scientific investigation by collecting and anlyzing data, eventually sharing everything openly to finally "own the libs" for good. Until that point, lots of words that aren't backed by a proper analysis are just speculations and should be treated as such. Science isn't built on speculations but on hard data, and this standard is not negotiable. Challenges and skepticism are welcome but they should be properly supported, rethoric is just not enough.

SilverElfin 1y ago
> The only right way to contest a scientific study is to provide a new scientific investigation that reaches different conclusions. Why is this the “only way”? The issue is this study seems to have manipulated its procedure to arrive at a preset conclusion. There are a lot of seemingly valid problems pointed out with it. Shouldn’t that be enough to contest it without the burden or cost or time of an “opposing” study?
- foldr 1y ago
  It's easy for criticisms of a scientific study to look valid if you've only read the criticisms and not the study, and if you lack the expertise and context to evaluate them. One of the authors has posted a response briefly explaining why RFK is (as consistent with his track record) talking rubbish: https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/data-vs.-doubt-danish-scientist-responds-to-u.s.-hhs-secretary-critique-of-aluminum-vaccine-study-290120e9 https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/data-vs.-doubt-danish-scient... https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/landmark-danish-study-on-aluminum-in-childhood-vaccines-faces-fierce-criticismand-a-measured-defense-fcaf0bf6 https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/landmark-danish-study-on-alu... I'm sure that, as usual, the methodology of this particular study can be debated and people can disagree over exactly which conclusions can be drawn from it. That's not a reason to withdraw it from publication.
- blackbear_ 1y ago
  > There are a lot of seemingly valid problems pointed out with it. As I said, if the problems are indeed valid then a new analysis will show it. Otherwise, it's all speculations, and that is simply not enough. Science isn't built on speculations but on hard data, and this standard is not negotiable. Saying "sounds about right", shrugging and calling it a day is just not acceptable.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]

SilverElfin 1y ago

> The only right way to contest a scientific study is to provide a new scientific investigation that reaches different conclusions. Why is this the “only way”? The issue is this study seems to have manipulated its procedure to arrive at a preset conclusion. There are a lot of seemingly valid problems pointed out with it. Shouldn’t that be enough to contest it without the burden or cost or time of an “opposing” study?

foldr 1y ago
It's easy for criticisms of a scientific study to look valid if you've only read the criticisms and not the study, and if you lack the expertise and context to evaluate them. One of the authors has posted a response briefly explaining why RFK is (as consistent with his track record) talking rubbish: https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/data-vs.-doubt-danish-scientist-responds-to-u.s.-hhs-secretary-critique-of-aluminum-vaccine-study-290120e9 https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/data-vs.-doubt-danish-scient... https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/landmark-danish-study-on-aluminum-in-childhood-vaccines-faces-fierce-criticismand-a-measured-defense-fcaf0bf6 https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/landmark-danish-study-on-alu... I'm sure that, as usual, the methodology of this particular study can be debated and people can disagree over exactly which conclusions can be drawn from it. That's not a reason to withdraw it from publication.
blackbear_ 1y ago
> There are a lot of seemingly valid problems pointed out with it. As I said, if the problems are indeed valid then a new analysis will show it. Otherwise, it's all speculations, and that is simply not enough. Science isn't built on speculations but on hard data, and this standard is not negotiable. Saying "sounds about right", shrugging and calling it a day is just not acceptable.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]