June 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention posted a report on Tuesday that said evidence does not support a link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders, ahead of a two-day meeting of an advisory panel later this week.

  • NeonNight@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Too many people can’t grasp that autism symptoms show up around the age these vaccines are given, and that it often causes your child to regress to a degree. But no, they don’t want to accept a complicated answer that doesn’t let them blame somebody.

  • Brown5500@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    I don’t think this headline belongs to this article.

    The article is talking about how the study referenced a non-existent source

    • hume_lemmy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Way too coherent and clear. You forgot the proceeding “Uh wuh wuh buh bup wah we well…”

  • besselj@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    I’m inclined to believe it, but the CDC has very little credibility right now

      • treadful@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Unless you’re a trained scientist qualified to review their studies, you have to believe someone.

      • besselj@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Indeed, but if just one person is caught fudging numbers to get desired results, all of their work gets called into question. Without transparency, all you can go on is credibility and “believing”.

          • besselj@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            12 hours ago

            It isn’t, but not all scientists can maintain scientific integrity when faced with significant external pressures (from people like RFK, for example). Those that can’t dont stay scientists for long.

            All findings can eventually be reproduced or disproven, but not without time and money. In the short term, trust and credibility is paramount.

            • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              4 hours ago

              You do know that peer review exists, right? This isn’t some brand new hypothesis being tested for the first time.

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    Just wait until that son-of-a-bridge RFK Jr. gets to it. I hear he has a fresh shipment of Sharpies from the White House to make sure it is totally accurate.

    He will start by editing out the “not” in the above quote. See? Science works!

  • WeirdyBeansAt@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    That’s all well and good, but the people leading these organizations believe that science = jumping to a vibes based conclusion and then smashing a bunch of shit together calling it a process. It doesn’t matter if the sources are just made up or simply not there. Actual data driven results are for egghead gay communists who think chem trails are fake.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      Not just the people leading these organizations, this seems to have become what the average American thinks science is, and it is literally killing our society.

    • MPD@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      I wonder if this is a last ditch effort to get info out before it all get rolled back pseudoscience becomes gospel.