We know that allready. There is a more reliable test the zip code one, but you know. Someone is ready to make some money for rich people that believe that their wealth stems only from their skills. Nothing to do whatsoever with privilege

Not exsclty and we agree to disagree. They are not comparable.

OK whatever, some people believe also that the earth is flat.

We don't cater to them our whole policy and existence

Well he falsified data, he didn't see any real effects stop with strawman arguments.

What he did was fraud period. You can't compare it

Wakefield falsified data, this is fraud completely different thing. You can't compare it with a random study, that has it faults, but is not fraudulent. It would completely different if we knew they changed their numbers.

Also in his case multiple other studies couldn't find an effect, but he insists he was right.

Critisism is different than rejecting the whole idea of the study.The authors are careful and don't make huge claims, this is why the title is general. They push for more studies in the field and this is OK.

Wakefield thinks his studies were correct, despite evidence to the contrary, and he tried to profit from his fraudulent studies. Completely different things. Please don't compare

You are a bit unfair. Most studies start like that and they are careful. This clearly a pilot study to see an effect and get more grants down the line.

They give high dosage to see easily and udoubtly an effect before proceeding with more careful dosaging where the effect might be negible. If you can't see an effect or a very negative effect at a huge dosage then there is no pint continuing.

They are probably at the stage where they need to set up an experimental model, I mean they don't even if their mice ingest properly the fumes. They don't know which would be the appropriate controls.

This is a typical pilot study for me with some results that show a effect with the intention to ask for more funding later now that they have shown;

1. An effect that needs better understand and further analysis.
2. that their experimenal model works
3. that they have prior experience with this type of treatments.

I cannot stress how important the last one is. Setting up a new experimental model with a new type of treatment in mice is very hard. Overcoming the small problems and having it rdy to work is a half the job.

Noone will read this and think, hey ledt do policy changes. They know it, the reader knows it. What they did propably was to set up a model that was sure to work to work out the kinks and get more money later for more detailed studies.

With limited money and the push to publish all the experiments as positive results this is what you get. But everyone knows and no one bases all their policy changes one one paper.

Hey water is in all your.foods and healthy.

Water in your lungs in a big no no. Please stop saying stuff like it is made sth natural that is everywhere.

If you take sth natural process it and then introduce where it is not supposed to be there are going to be problems

A country that was not invaded recently. A country that is actually a collision of 3 different states that even today try to keep their unique identities and show how different they are from the rest.

Rolls royces all ready leases their aircraft engines fkr years.

Now I am not sure about items for individual consumers , but this approach has some advantages. Although to be fair you pay the engine only when it runs and when you service it if it mber correctly.

It allows for convergence of interests since R&R and the airline aim to make the engine as efficient as possible and to last for as much as possible.

The steady income allows R&R to focus on making really good engines without focusing on making a ton of them and just push them around via marketing.

Again this is just for a product without individual consumers as final customers

Yes this is what they do. Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages regarding how representative it is to human disease