In spite of claims that Kennedy has been proven wrong on COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy, the study in question merely reminds us of how far afield of reality non-independent investigators live.
At what point does a scientific critique become literary genius? HAAAA!!!!
I'm starting a collection:
Invoking biological plausibility in the absence of empirical control is rhetorical scaffolding, not evidence.
The study lacks a pre-specified directed acyclic graph (DAG), leaving readers unable to distinguish between confounding control and causal mutilation.
The exposure variable becomes a probabilistic smudge, incapable of carrying causal information.
The bridge from PCR to autism is not a chain of evidence—it is a telephone line transmitting static.
can I paraphrase you and just say: they made the shit up? ;) ;)
all I gotta say is: what in the actual F***?
that someone actually set out to 'study' something so absurd on its face, is only topped that another somebody funded it.
At what point does a scientific critique become literary genius? HAAAA!!!!
I'm starting a collection:
Invoking biological plausibility in the absence of empirical control is rhetorical scaffolding, not evidence.
The study lacks a pre-specified directed acyclic graph (DAG), leaving readers unable to distinguish between confounding control and causal mutilation.
The exposure variable becomes a probabilistic smudge, incapable of carrying causal information.
Invoking biological plausibility in the absence of empirical control is rhetorical scaffolding, not evidence.
The bridge from PCR to autism is not a chain of evidence—it is a telephone line transmitting static.
can I paraphrase you and just say: they made the shit up? ;) ;)
all I gotta say is: what in the actual F***?
that someone actually set out to 'study' something so absurd on its face, is only topped that another somebody funded it.