VaporLockBox t1_j5zw8as wrote
Reply to comment by 1-trofi-1 in Canadian scientists exposed mice to vapour from JUUL e-cigarettes and found it caused changes in the animals' pulmonary immune cell composition and altered gene and protein levels in their lungs. by MistWeaver80
Wakefield may have falsified data and conclusions but some people believe it was a good thing and any criticism was unfair. Wakefield needed a large effect in order to secure more resources for more studies which needed large effects in order to secure more resources in order to conduct more studies. Since Wakefield’s study was not identical in every aspect to this study some people believe they the two studies cannot be compared. Some people are of the opinion that Wakefield’s study can only be compared to Wakefield’s study and no other study because no other study is identical in every aspect to the Wakefield study. Some people may argue that the conclusions of the Wakefield paper were real and sound and important and wouldn’t effect public policy even though the data behind them was questionable. Who would disagree with the need for Wakefield to raise more money for more studies with a conclusion which some people believe is real and sound and important even though the data behind the conclusion was the result of activities which did not generate data which supported the conclusion.
1-trofi-1 t1_j5zx0zl wrote
Well he falsified data, he didn't see any real effects stop with strawman arguments.
What he did was fraud period. You can't compare it
VaporLockBox t1_j5zypk6 wrote
Some people believe that even though the data was fraudulently falsified it wasn’t strawman fraudulent because it allowed for a real effect which was not real but was real so more money could be raised for more studies which also needed fraudulent effects which weren’t fraudulent but were real and not real but were real so that more money could be raised for more studies which can and can’t and can be compared to this study which is not identical to Wakefield’s study in even aspect. You are very much correct in that the data was falsified which led to false conclusions.
1-trofi-1 t1_j6035ln wrote
OK whatever, some people believe also that the earth is flat.
We don't cater to them our whole policy and existence
VaporLockBox t1_j605pcr wrote
Exactly. The two studies use data to generate false conclusions but are not comparable because they are not identical in every aspect but both have comparable made up effects which is not real but is real so that more money can be raised to conduct more studies which won’t impact policy because Wakefield’s conclusions only use false data to generate a large enough false conclusions to raise more funds for more studies with false conclusions and shouldn’t be criticized but should be criticized because we shouldn’t cater to them on policy or existence as you correctly point out.
1-trofi-1 t1_j609nmj wrote
Not exsclty and we agree to disagree. They are not comparable.
VaporLockBox t1_j60af9r wrote
People can disagree without being disagreeable. Which is in comparison to much discourse which is also not comparable for obviously comparable but not commensurate reasons.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments