@kravietz @feld I'm not talking about 5G, I provided a link to an article. You say it's retracted. It isn't. There is a link to an article that allows the company to respond. It contains: "The company isn’t denying that genes from its own mosquitoes made it into the wild population – this has long been known to occur. Instead, Oxitec finds fault with the idea that this gene transfer is dangerous in any
You stopped in the most interesting moment:
“The data published in this paper and in the entire body of peer-reviewed literature do not support this (hybrid vigor) hypothesis,” an Oxitec representative told us. “The natural, background genetics passed into the local population declined over time, after releases of Oxitec mosquitoes stopped.”
If my wording is now your best argument, that's a good thing already...
No, it's not "retraction" technically. It's experimental confirmation that the hypothesis from the first article was false:
"Despite the alarming tone of the paper, no trace of these traits was found in this or any earlier study"
Now *this* is still not retraction technically but it is a large correction from the original authors who admit incorrect conclusions and methodologic mistakes:
@kravietz @feld That's a retraction?