"Because of public skepticism, it is not settled science" is a profoundly anti-scientific view. It's embracing the notion that grifters can overcome truth with sheer volume, that truth itself isn't based in observable reality but in the scope of consensus.
Reposted from
Jonathan Howard
According to a former editor of JAMA, we need more studies on whether or not vaccines cause autism.
What mistakes does he make?
🧵
What mistakes does he make?
🧵
Comments
Ed is a former surgeon, MD and seemingly an intelligent man. Instincts of mine have him as obliquely MAGA:
https://www.statnews.com/2021/04/06/podcast-puts-jama-under-fire-for-mishandling-of-race/
Large no's of my wider family are/were also ASC (not formally diagnosed) & this would b4 vaccines widely available. Vaccines do not cause autism. Dredging up conspiracies make it easier for authorities to deny critical support.
We *do*, however, need to find ways to break through their *chosen* ignorance and their inability to *accept* science
Who got to this guy?
That’s just science.
Fact check: true
WTF?
This is tail wagging the dog stuff.
There. Fixed that for him.
Confirmation studies aren’t bad. But wariness of intellectual honesty and pressure is obviously warranted.
Why bother doing rounds on vaccine relection disproved ages ago which initially came for a fame-seeking conspiracy theorists?
Or may be more research on effects of ketamine abuse?
And there’s an autistic person who got trump elected.
Autism diagnoses are up.
Vaccination rates are down.
If this simple combination of facts doesn’t show reality and persuade, then what would??! Nothing.
I think not.
Science needs more art and content about it.
There is some truth in the original piece's nonsense