In the field of psychology (and likely others) the results would have been published six years ago.
This shows how scientific standards and diligence can vary from field to field.
If they had published six years ago, the whole community would have been able to validate and confirm in those six years, instead of just their own lab. Someone in a different lab might have had a better idea and the thing could be validated in two years instead of six.
As long as results are transparently and reproducibly shared, knowledge is knowledge and there's no reason to hide it.
>This shows how scientific standards and diligence can vary from field to field.
No they vary from person to person, journal to journal, school to school, lab to lab. Some fields might tend to do better than others, but why turn this into a field v. field issue?
A few points most people don't know:
1. He wasn't against vaccines.
2. He found a "correlation" between gut inflammation and autism.
3. His paper in the 90s didn't say vaccines caused autism. (that I recall reading anyway)
Listen to what he actually said. He knows his sample size was small, he knows he couldn't make any absolute conclusions at the beginning. He simply found something unexpected and reported on it.
I would challenge you to read his papers, go to youtube and watch a presentation of his and see what he actually says, not repeat accusations from others against him. I think you will be surprised that he doesn't believe/teach most of what people accuse him of.
Edit: Merck caught lying about their measles vaccines. (an actual lawsuit from 2 virologists, the court papers are linked in the article)
https://www.courthousenews.com/Class-Says-Merck-Lied-About-M...