People like you are what's wrong with science. Get off the strawman soapbox.
The actual analogy of my position: "That washing thing is radical, let's trial it in a quarter of the cases based on early results and compare outcomes."
That's the perfectly rational response to a radical, but promising change. Not to switch all the ORs based on preliminary results.
Pretending that "we should roll out GMOs slowly because we're bad at systemic risk and this is important" is the same as "burn people for talking about heliocentric systems" is just nonsense zealotry from you. Which is why people are concerned about GMOs -- doubting zealots is good practice.
The actual analogy of my position: "That washing thing is radical, let's trial it in a quarter of the cases based on early results and compare outcomes."
That's the perfectly rational response to a radical, but promising change. Not to switch all the ORs based on preliminary results.
Pretending that "we should roll out GMOs slowly because we're bad at systemic risk and this is important" is the same as "burn people for talking about heliocentric systems" is just nonsense zealotry from you. Which is why people are concerned about GMOs -- doubting zealots is good practice.