I could not disagree with this more. If we do not retract flawed research with the purpose to cause harm, what is the point of retraction at all?https://twitter.com/NAChristakis/status/1329471888180072452 …
-
-
Are you going to delete that tweet, given it has the potential to cause harm?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Wow, imagine if that Andrew Wakefield work hadn’t been retracted. It’s harmed vaccine work enough.
-
Yep! If you save retraction for only outright fraud then the literature will be littered with nonsense
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And it’s only a matter of time before the flawed yet still existing research gets referenced in defence of a belief. Crikey Wakefield still gets referenced even though retracted !
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That is just as problematic... Wildly arbitrary. Do you not publish vaccine side effects because it has potential to add to vaccine hesitancy?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.