What specifically do you disagree with? I’ve explained it three different times now and can’t delete my original comment so please let me know
This research shows physicians harmed kids recommending they avoid allergens like peanuts, is that something we should ignore because all the benefits of science are “worth it”?
Science is amazing not because it’s always right, but because it (should) strive to always do better next time
All you're fucking doing is saying "Don't save a million people of 1 person is going to be harmed" OR the utterly trite point of "wouldn't it be great if everything was magical and no one was harmed by anything ever".
What you’re describing is called utilitarian ethics, the exact tradeoff is called the trolly problem. Ethics is much more complicated than a single comment thread
“it’s worth it” is a horrible argument when people’s health is on the line.
This research shows physicians harmed kids recommending they avoid allergens like peanuts, is that something we should ignore because all the benefits of science are “worth it”?
Science is amazing not because it’s always right, but because it (should) strive to always do better next time