First off, I must share with you my feelings reading this article. Not only is it very uncomfortable for me to read this scientific study, it is completely frightening to think that this work can reach a highly trafficked news source. Reading this article, personally, makes you laugh at points but also makes you feel sorry to those who may be offended. Although this does not offend me, I can certainly understand where people could find this very insulting.
To look at this from an ethical point of view, it certainly seems to be offensive, illegitimate, and misleading. If you look at this as a scientific journalist, you will likely agree that this is not science but rather journalism in the modern world. (Biased/Untruthful Journalism) An "italian" doctor, whom I have not heard of, is proposing results that have as much credibility as the link between vaccines and autism.
Unfortunately, I am not fluent in Italian so I cannot read his argument. But what I can do is reflect on this as a more business savvy and numerical point of view. I assume that Vanoli's argument is back by a study and has numerical data that reinforces his theory. As you learn with statistics, theory is backed by results and results are no more than a potential success of proving your theory. In simpler words, you propose an idea, you take a sample, test the sample, and then reflect on your results. These results are a "probability" not facts. Like I said before, I wish I knew Italian because I would love to see his statistical evidence here.
Science and Statistics walk a thin line with each other. A statistician works on probability and scientists tend to work on fact. In this case, we are seeing a clash that leads me to believe Vanoli is reporting false information. Trying to keep a scientific and open mind, I am giving this scientist the benefit of the doubt that his scientific theory may be reinforced statistically but I am not willing to admit that he is "proving" anything.
Additionally, you must consider that Vanoli is touching on a very relevant and controversial topic. Clearly, I was offended by his science but he is attempting to crack a tough topic to many people. I made it clear that I am not sold on his scientific theory but even more important, people will surely find no credibility in such an outrageous theory. Ethically, this crosses the line. Scientifically, this is enough to make you laugh. Hopefully people look into this topic and do not take anything for fact until "proven" correct.
