5 comments

[ 1.4 ms ] story [ 27.0 ms ] thread
Because hundreds of studies done across the globe showing their safety and necessity are wrong. So are all the researchers who have broadened the Autism spectrum , thus allowing thousands of previously undiagnosed kids, and adults, to get the help they needed. Forget peer review, huge study groups, the ability for others to replicate results independently... you know that whole pesky scientific method. Lets just believe a few politicians and celebrities, and their feelings...
On the other hand, I don't want a non-skeptic who doesn't care about safety to start just injecting drugs into everyone.

It's good to have a skeptic.

I would like news articles to characterize the subject and themselves to be characterized:

Subject: 95% Conjecture, 5% fact Discussion: 25% Conjecture, 75% fact

People deceiving themselves or others by claiming facts, asserting a subject as the truth, is harmful since many people will not read critically. Having a disclaimer up front seems responsible, "Cigarette's kill", etc.

On the other hand what I'm asking for is a potential violation of the freedom of speech.

You always get to the problem of "decider of truth" in these kind of approaches.
The leg braces make you faster Forrest, that way you can run away faster from Poliomyelitis and the truth.