the conclusion (s) in the article are supported by the (now outdated but then relevant and available) empirical data set. This happens all the time in research. The author of the article you linked doesn’t factually debunk this, he just assigns subjectivity, subjectively. Same goes for so called P-hacking. you can make that argument about the vast majority of empirical research papers. (hence me pointing that out to perpetuous dreamer in my reply first sentence) that doesn't make it bad science, it just means is part of the
corpus,
Simple, like I said the empirical data set is now outdated. And 43 citations within 1 year on a very specific subset of a very specific topic is not that bad at all actually.
For reference, there’s broad scale genuine crackpot young universe creationist theory “papers” out there who’ve been cited 9 times in 10 years, almost exclusively by fellow creationist peers.
it doesn’t make the paper bad science. The methodology and procedures followed are sound, they aren't leading the evidence.. Had they done that and it not been the paper (especially given the topic and everybody being on top of it) would have been retracted by now.
No. What we have here is valid empirical research (on now outdated data) culminating in a valid scientific paper, with a stretched but still within bounds valid conclusion having passed multiple peer review stages and two publications by respectable medical journals.
…and 1 opinion piece /cope article on a medical website bemoaning that. If we’re going to talk about “massaging the data” fallacy here. The SBM opinion piece reads like an article from salon.com with things like “it suggests subjectivity to me” and “nonsense peddled” activist-language. its dripping with bias rather then an actual, scientific rebuttals and 25 odd what "twitter references". which i'd like to point out, is not the researchers fault nor "proof" the paper is ideologically or politically compromised.
If there’s the possibility, which I’m not going to deny that there might be, that the original paper had participants in it with an antivax sentiment, then that 1 wasn't severe enough in the end result to get it retracted or revise/reviewed by peers. and 2
certainly the case with this “investigative journalist” over here only then the other way around on the pro-vax camp.
my same perspective about vaccines compared to whom?
My perspective on vaccines is that , before releasing them. should be grounded in a solid corpus of scientific works and tests (so not just one or two papers, which is the mistake both your full-pro and dreamers full-against camp regularly make, that’s not how science works, notice also my first reply to the man) which, factually, didn’t happen with the sarscov2 vaccines and tests/procedures where skipped, specifically multiple long-therm effect test stages and being rushed into the demos.
hence we ended up with a fairly shit set of vaccines and a huge set of promises that wherent fulfilled. Hence me waiting and seeing.
Any other vaccines like polio that do meet those standards I’m all in favour of and have most of them in my body as we speak.
^if that is an unreasonable position to hold regarding medical science and vaccination in your view, then you should ask yourself who's actually the extreme party out of both of us here m8
. and until ( and that’s a big untill) the paper is actually withdrawn, it remains a valid part of
the corpus of scientific research surrounding COVID mRNA vaccines.
so does bill nye, so does michio kaku, so does f ing carl sagan.. 2 seconds in and we have surf-shark add, getting clicks from a target drama audience on youtube not going through veratasiums whole range of video's/topics.