- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
A review on the use of the preservative thimerosal in vaccines slated to be presented on Thursday to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s outside vaccine committee cites a study that does not exist, the scientist listed as the study’s author said.
The report, called “Thimerosal as a Vaccine Preservative” published on the CDC website on Tuesday, is to be presented by Lyn Redwood, a former leader of the anti-vaccine group Children’s Health Defense.
It makes reference to a study called “Low-level neonatal thimerosal exposure: Long-term consequences in the brain,” published in the journal Neurotoxicology in 2008, and co-authored by UC Davis Professor Emeritus Robert Berman.
But according to Berman, “it’s not making reference to a study I published or carried out.”
You must log in or register to comment.
AI slop, probably. AI is good at inventing “sources” to bolster it’s hallucinations.
The CDC is sadly not trustable anymore. No one should be taking their advice or their meetings. US will prob have to rebuild the whole agency from scratch someday in order to have it function again.
Holy shit I think someone at the CDC used an AI to do their report on a vaccine and didn’t proof read it.
That’s my bet. This is cranks and grifters thinking no one is going to check their work, so they saw no reason to bother checking it themselves.
Or maybe they did proofread it, but nobody actually knew or cared that the data was wrong because they fired all the epidemiologists and pharmacologists and chemists and so on who know what the fuck they’re doing.
Probably that and they know there is no evidence to support their anti-vax agenda so, have to invent it.
the CDC is a captured entity. they are completely compromised and should not be listened to. default to the WHO instead. there’s no regulatory capture there.
Not at all surprising. Didn’t I just read about another CDC study that says using this preservative had no correlation to autism?
Yeah, I thought this was about that one at first.
So AI fuckup?
No, AI did exactly what it does: predict which words were most likely to appear next to each other given a specific context/prompt.
The humans involved aren’t “fucking up” either because this is all intentional. They know the evidence is fabricated, they just don’t care because it provides them an excuse to indulge their biases.
