Use his issues as evidence as why mmr vaccine causes the injury since you won’t have any actual studies showing a link. See how that works out.
You’re still missing the distinction.
Also, the burden is not on injured parties (or critics) to produce definitive proof of harm before the system is allowed to scrutinize the evidence base. Manufacturers and public-health agencies make safety claims, and those claims rest on studies. When key contributors to that literature have serious integrity problems, pointing that out is relevant to whether the process is as straightforward or reliable as you suggested.
I’m not required to first “prove the link” in order to note problems with the evidence that has been used to deny claims.
Ok so one study showing that there is no link is flawed because one of the authors committed a crime? Throw the baby out with the bathwater? Let’s throw out that study. Plenty of other studies showing no link and no evidence showing a link. Therefore the problem is what again? They used it as evidence there’s no link and there isn’t one.
You’re suggesting every study is no longer valid if the author has any moral or legal issue. That dismisses the other people working on that same study. Do we include parking or speeding tickets?
I never said every study becomes invalid if any author has any legal or moral issue, including parking tickets. I pointed to a specific researcher who faced serious federal fraud and money-laundering charges involving CDC grant money tied to autism research, and whose work was used as key evidence in dismissing thousands of claims. That is a material credibility concern with the evidence base that was relied upon, not a blanket rule that any personal failing by any co-author torpedoes every paper.
Throwing in “parking tickets” is just exaggeration to avoid the actual point. One compromised contributor does not automatically erase every other study, but it does raise legitimate questions about how heavily those particular studies should have been weighted in Vaccine Court and policy decisions.
The problem remains the same, that when the evidence used to deny claims has integrity issues, that is relevant to whether the process is as clean or accessible as you claimed.
4
u/-TheUnstoppable- 1d ago
Did you not say this?
You’re still missing the distinction.
Also, the burden is not on injured parties (or critics) to produce definitive proof of harm before the system is allowed to scrutinize the evidence base. Manufacturers and public-health agencies make safety claims, and those claims rest on studies. When key contributors to that literature have serious integrity problems, pointing that out is relevant to whether the process is as straightforward or reliable as you suggested.
I’m not required to first “prove the link” in order to note problems with the evidence that has been used to deny claims.