If you have made comments on the Age of Autism article The End of Science History, please copy your comment here, including the date and time you posted at AoA.
Posted at Age of Autism on Feb. 10, 2010 at 9:22am (EST)
@Martin Walker
You seem to be engaging in a bit of hyperbole. Equating the Lancet's retraction to Orwell's 1984 totalitarian government is absurd. First is the very obvious fact that Wakefield's paper is still viewable on the Lancet's web site. In fact, here is a link to the PDF.
Second, even suggesting that any entity could entirely erase information in this age is silly in the extreme. I would, quite frankly, be surprised if Wakefield's supporters did not have copies of his study saved all over the place, let alone Wakefield himself maintaining a copy.
Third, this is one paper. Its retraction will not "erase" Wakefield's "life". He and his supporters have made quite certain of that. While his conduct of the 1998 study was exceedingly unethical, I've no doubts that he will continue to pump out dodgy science, never admitting even the possibility that he might have been wrong.
Certainly, by this point, the editors have permanently banned me, so this post will most likely never appear on Age of Autism. As such, I've cross-posted it to the blog Silenced by Age of Autism.
Posted at Age of Autism on Feb. 10, 2010 at 9:22am (EST)
ReplyDelete@Martin Walker
You seem to be engaging in a bit of hyperbole. Equating the Lancet's retraction to Orwell's 1984 totalitarian government is absurd. First is the very obvious fact that Wakefield's paper is still viewable on the Lancet's web site. In fact, here is a link to the PDF.
Second, even suggesting that any entity could entirely erase information in this age is silly in the extreme. I would, quite frankly, be surprised if Wakefield's supporters did not have copies of his study saved all over the place, let alone Wakefield himself maintaining a copy.
Third, this is one paper. Its retraction will not "erase" Wakefield's "life". He and his supporters have made quite certain of that. While his conduct of the 1998 study was exceedingly unethical, I've no doubts that he will continue to pump out dodgy science, never admitting even the possibility that he might have been wrong.
Certainly, by this point, the editors have permanently banned me, so this post will most likely never appear on Age of Autism. As such, I've cross-posted it to the blog Silenced by Age of Autism.