Ehhh

So ehh what did I miss

they said there reasons
not the explanation

you can look at the paper itself and see the reasons

procedural errors, undisclosed financial conflicts of interest, and ethical violations are not reasons, i thought u were a believer in the scientific procedure?

noyt everyone is going to explain the reasons for every action they take

they didn't say anywhere in the paper where those terms would apply, that's as if i said all globetards are retarded and told you '' figure it out yourself ''

@Σ5 just stop. It's not even worth it.

your expecting a scientific paper to assess a scientific paper
eventually you will get infinite papers

https://youtu.be/OmoL8LlQwWQ

@Σ5 You agree that if someone is gonna come with a label on your paper that you made, you would expect some evidence behind it with direct quotes or procedures that you took? Nope, not one evidence of it. All they did it was call it those terms with no further backing.

it was most likely a vote not a single person decision

Appeal to authority is very hypocritical. Who cares what a person labels it as, what cares is the evidence as to why they label it as it.

But you seem to care about the labels more than the evidence which they never presented.

never endorced apeal to authority

'' A bunch of people said those terms therefore those terms are correct '' is pretty much appeal to authority.

they need a way to systamaticly clasify the papers
they need to lable it to be more efficient

Better to be immune to a series of deadly illnesses than having some adjuvants in your body

thats apeal to popularity

wich is ok if you know how the people do the process

I thought you were talking about the doctors that took the vote which would be appeal to authority.

you cant be absolutly sure but sure enugh

i am

All I'm asking is for you to present evidence behind to those terms and not just take it up because some authority said it so. Critical thinking is very much needed today for this kind of stuff.

im just saying whats possible

That's fair, don't you think they should present the evidence when labeling the paper those terms? Wouldn't it be unjust for the anti-vaxxer doctor to get his license revoked and paper falsified with no further evidence?

they should

at least an attached explanation
a rundown at least

they might

but i need to see the website

That's what I thought too, but I never saw anything else. https://www.publichealth.org/public-awareness/understanding-vaccines/vaccine-myths-debunked/

>Myth #1: Vaccines cause autism.
The widespread fear that vaccines increase risk of autism originated with a 1997 study published by Andrew Wakefield, a British surgeon. The article was published in The Lancet, a prestigious medical journal, suggesting that the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine was increasing autism in British children.

The paper has since been completely discredited due to serious procedural errors, undisclosed financial conflicts of interest, and ethical violations. Andrew Wakefield lost his medical license and the paper was retracted from The Lancet.

thats a basic site that i see no reason to adress it in full

i was thinking like a formal site where they adress the papers
maybe the site itself where teh papers are posted

If you read further they say that the thing has taken seriously and addressed, and they did other studies

dont expect it to go into depth on that site

Appeal to authority again, they never mentioned what the further studies or papers that they conducted were. No specifications. Look at it from a neutral POV @ksucc 🌙

If you ask the doctor who did the study they will probably send all the things but we don’t know who is

@ksucc 🌙 You basically agree to those terms because someone said so and not the evidence presented?

Well There is

Pretty sure not every doctor is aware of every study that has taken place.