680

submitted 5 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

59 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 2) 12 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] CamilleMellom@jlai.lu 2 points 5 months ago

Might be a dumb question/remark but while this story is super bad, I don’t believe our regulations are based on this one study, right? AFAIK, EFSA and IARC (which only found limited evidence of carcinogenic effect on humans) used more data (with better quality) than just this article: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-017-1962-5

While this article and its conclusions are bad and did a lot of damage in terms of trust, do we know that this retraction means that the conclusions is that it is toxic? I’d be surprised that this is the one study we base all our regulatory decisions on, because I tend to trust EFSA’s conclusion, their work is usually good and up to date.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-017-1962-5

[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 months ago

I feel like any paper that's published that cited a paper which got retracted, should automatically be reviewed and assessed to determine if they should also be retracted.

[-] VividNight@midwest.social 1 points 4 months ago

I agree, except it should be retracted automatically, & only re-admitted if the review is successful in ascertaining legitimacy, & all papers that cite retracted papers receive the same treatment while allowing them to be automatically re-instated if their sources become legitimate after review; let the psudoscience fall like the house of cards that it is.

load more comments