Did a celebrated researcher obscure a baby's poisoning?

> And if there's no chance of a conviction, there's no benefit to anybody from reopening the investigation.

It's probably true that without a chance of conviction, standard protocol dictates that public resources should not be expended on reopening the investigation. But I was also heavily distracted while reading the article, scanning optimistically for the happy (under the circumstances) ending where justice is served. I certainly don't think there is "no benefit to anybody".

Are you Koren? Did we read the same article? The one that calls into question anything Koren says or claims?

From the article I read:

"A twelve-day-old infant cannot crawl. It cannot grab, and it cannot put something into its own mouth. “It also cannot swallow a Tylenol-3 pill,” Juurlink told me. “I don’t know what happened in that house, on that night, but I do know that someone gave this baby crushed Tylenol-3,” likely mixed in breast milk or formula. “That’s the only way these numbers make sense.”"

> If this is in the breastmilk, ...

Note that you and GP are talking about different values of "this." GP is talking about codeine, you're talking about morphine. The difference between the two is at the crux of this article.

> I don't understand this urge to demonize the parents, who on top of having lost a child, have to stand these witchtrials.

Neither the article nor the commenter you replied to has demonized the parents. Yes, both the evidence discussed in the article and the opinions of those interviewed indicate direct administration of a pharmaceutical; it is appropriate to discuss this. Nobody has pointed the finger at anyone; it would indeed be quite inappropriate for such a discussion to be held in this forum.

The article goes into detail about how this level of morphine in the breastmilk could not have given the baby a lethal (or even clinically effective) dose.

Furthermore, Koren lied about what the tests showed the stomach contents to be: he omitted codeine entirely. Codeine (per the article) would not be expected to be transferred by breastmilk -- it's metabolized into morphine to be effective.

Ironically, being anti-science is pro-science. Skepticism of institutions and consensus is the scientific method.

The main reason being scientific consensus can lag reality significantly, especially when career incentives discourage dissent. The history of science includes many cases where consensus was wrong and critics were marginalized rather than engaged.

Deference to science as an authority is the opposite.

Feynman has a quote on this:

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When someone says, 'Science teaches such and such,' he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, 'Science has shown such and such,' you might ask, 'How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?' It should not be 'science has shown' but 'this experiment, this effect, has shown.' And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments — but be patient and listen to all the evidence — to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at."

It means we need to be careful about distinguishing scientific consensus, and truth. Science can be used to find truth, but that is the science itself, not the consensus.

Science as an "institution" serves only to protect egos, fraudsters, and politicians.

When citizen science is ridiculed and "the institution of science" is glorified this is what you get.

And anyone who dares to profess this, is a loony, a conspiracy theorist, an anti-scientific person, etc.

Doing a PhD, I got to see a tension first hand that clarifies the reproducibility question: most of the papers I read were visibly garbage, but reading papers was a necessary step in achieving tasks. Every student at some point tries to achieve their concrete tasks without sifting through the dung heap to see how other people lied about their approach to the tasks, and it doesn't work- the garbage is a necessary ingredient and or enough authors are truthful.

The best media representation I've seen of this process is the youtube channel Explosions&Fire, which attempts to replicate entertaining-looking chemistry papers. He's often mad at the authors of the papers he's using in any given episode, but following their breadcrumbs is still effective enough (compared to I guess mixing acids and stuff based on vibes?) that he keeps at it.

If they are not reproducible, then they are not valid studies and not using the scientific method which requires reproducibility. So yes, the scientific method is indeed perfect. lol