We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
is it safe to say that post wakefield because i'm trying to go back and remember the timeline it was around 2007 2008 that i mean every claim of wakefield had been pretty much debunked correct and to your point it wasn't just debunked scientifically but i mean it had been made clear that that he had lied and he had manipulated data as head o'leary and this was one big house of cards
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.