@C7RKY @meandme10 @Dr_Ellie @22cantons Yes one might, but true risk could never be tested if a signif. no of others are vaccinated.
@Snyberwiz @meandme10 @Dr_Ellie @22cantons Sure, but industry is where most research comes from & that means just a 50% chance of publishing
-
-
@C7RKY@meandme10@Dr_Ellie@22cantons I do have a major concern about pharma not publishing -ve results. That does need to change. -
@Snyberwiz@meandme10@Dr_Ellie@22cantons It renders the value of what IS published, relatively meaningless for me. Unscientific, at least. -
@C7RKY What is published is prob perfectly valid and scientific. What is NOT pub is ethically wrong and distorts the scientific landscape. -
@Snyberwiz 'Probably' valid, is the key word for me there. It's unclear what's hidden, which may in turn undermine what has been published. -
@C7RKY There is always the possibility of fraudulent data but the vast majority of what is published is genuine -
@Snyberwiz I want to believe that, but I'm far from convinced of it I'm afraid. I just went researching. What I *didn't* find spoke volumes. -
@C7RKY Guess I'm not so cynical as you - however, don't change - science needs the odd Diogenes to keep it real! :) -
@Snyberwiz Indeed. Never used to be cynical. But watched my son scream in agony as MMR brain damaged him. Makes one ask questions, I guess? - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.