Recent Comments

Sep 24, 2020
Replying to Andrew Lockley

The retraction of this paper is an absolute disgrace to science. We do not throw our results into the memory hole because they cause "discomfort". It is the job of science to speak the truth, regardless of who that truth causes "distress" to. It sure caused the Catholic Church a lot of distress when Galileo pointed out that the earth was not the centre of the universe, but it didn't make it any less true. If the methodology is sound - as the researchers say it is - then this paper should stay up to contribute to public knowledge. Bowing to the snowflakes and cry-bullies who demand we conceal the truth casts us back into the dark ages, where belief was rooted in superstition, not fact. We must not give up an inch to this mob. In this specific instance, the retraction has denied us crucial knowledge that may help understand not only a medical condition, but also a wider set of factors affecting human development, behaviour and evolution. We have lost something of great value. 

Oh yes?  What causal mechanisms are those detailed in the paper that you don't seem to remember? Associations between endometriosis and particular phenotypic characteristics are legitimate as mentioned above (blue eye colour and rectovaginal endometriosis). However, how is beauty an objective genetic variable here? Please, are there genes associated with beauty? Beauty profiles have a history of variability. Women with thinner lips were most beautiful. Nowadays, it's the opposite.