And now they’ll be retaliated against.
Luckily, they are Danish.
And i seriously hope this attack results into numerous high-profile peer reviews that supports the paper.
Since it’s published, it’s already been reviewed. Someone might re-analyze the data or recreate the study though.
The study is Danish.
The journal, Annals of Internal Medicine, is run by the American College of Physicians, which is based in the US.
“If there was a mechanism of action where a particular vaccine caused autism, we’d see it in 80, 90, 100% of people receiving the vaccine, and we don’t,”
Er. This is not how biochemistry works. That comment should definitely be retracted as it severely diminishes Gary Grohmanns reputation.
Right?! That comes off as someone who has no clue how science works.
How does biochemistry work?
I am not a biochemist so take this with a spoonful of salt. Some things might be a bit more black/white, like how lactose intolerance people process lactose, but we know smoking can cause cancer and yet not everyone who smokes gets cancer. Usually things just increase your risk of something happening. Anything happening in 80+% of people would be extremely bad and likely very obvious over time.
If vaccines cause any increase in autism rate, it’s very low. Those types of things are very difficult to track down as a result.
The problem isn’t so much about biochem, the statement is awful from any scientific viewpoint.
Struggling to put this in words. “If X causes Y we’d observe that most of the time.” 80, 90, 100% of people who smoke do NOT get lung cancer, but the correlation is still clear.
Did that make sense?
That’s a much more difficult question.
Biochemistry rarely works the same in 80%, 90%, 100% of people.
You can’t meet simple thoughts with complex ones and still be effective.
If you are providing quotes for Nature you should avoid making misleading statements.
