|
|
|
|
|
|
by sirsar
1958 days ago
|
|
|
> How about... OP waits until there are actual results before posting? It seems to me there's value in posting the details before the results are in: - Helps prevent publication bias, by encouraging posting negative results - Elicits comments from knowledgeable people who may be able to help - Discourages doctoring the story after the results are in > Even fewer can make a safe vaccine. I don't know, the article, whitepaper, and comments seemed to make a pretty convincing case for the nasal vaccine attempt here to be not very dangerous - probably useless at worst. Do you have a more substantive counterargument? |
|
|
That's not what we're really seeing here, is it? The article is lowkey touting success when it's just an early experiment. OP is not "making vaccine" as the title states.
> - Elicits comments from knowledgeable people who may be able to help
Also not the case here.
> - Discourages doctoring the story after the results are in
Not really. One thing doesn't prevent the other from happening.
> I don't know, the article, whitepaper, and comments (...) Do you have a more substantive counterargument?
Yes, the scientific method and bona fide peer review