Even if accept the idea that it has to be written on at this stage, which I don’t, the story can wait until the information is looked over better, we still have the problem of how much better media needs to be about making it clear in their headlines that it shouldn’t be a concern right now and even if the problem is real it’s going to be very rare.
He was talking about Reuters not the medical researchers or journal. Routers chooses not to publish things all the time and not publishing something because it might not be fully substantiated yet and may cause public panic is perfectly in line with journalism ethics.
laypeople don’t read scientific journals. Sure some antivaxxers will link to it in their facebook rants which your average person will not read. Being on routers and other mainstream media is what gives mass exposure and credibility. The problem is that the antivax line will gain traction but it won’t lose traction if and when futher studies show the opposite. Noone reads retractions or reevaluates previous information, the first thing published is either exclusively believed in perpetuity or believed in additional to later better information in a state of cognitive dissonance. Best path is to publish the most accurate information when a more complete picture it is available than every development which will lead to all manner of misunderstandings.
