Quote:
Originally Posted by NewGuard84
I think we share similar views on the central issue and our discussion is on the value and implications of revisiting "established" science.
I agree that review is important and what is "established" must be a high threshold, based on duplicated studies, to know with reasonable certainty. Further review does not concern me so long as qualified people are doing the research, which is my issue.
I get suspicious when things we reasonably know (that are no longer debated among the qualified crowd) are revisited by pseudo-scientists or quacks who conveniently arrive at results that contradict the real science.
It sometimes muddies the waters in cases like this if there are "studies" to point to with differing results. That is where my Earth's orbit joke comes in: people still arrive at the conclusion the sun orbits the Earth, but how did they get there?  |
Yes I think we are on the same page. Scientists must submit their data to be peer reviewed. Problem with the garbage research is it isn’t repeatable and doesn’t come from scientists so hard to review!
One person I know has an autistic twin and a healthy twin. Said it was obvious from a young baby that one was different. PRIOR to any vaccinations!