3 ms·

I don't see any links whatsoever to hard evidence in the article. The only thing close are a book and an article published in Spanish and French, respectively,

I don't see any links whatsoever to hard evidence in the article. The only thing close are a book and an article published in Spanish and French, respectively, and seemingly no translation or availability in English bookstores. Yet everyone in the comments here are accepting it as fact, almost as readily as people accepted the tainted oil as fact. It's funny how human heuristics prevent critical thinking, even after reading an article about the lack of critical thinking. One of the most obvious pieces of evidence this article could have included is "The Spanish toxic oil syndrome 20 years after its onset: a multidisciplinary review of scientific knowledge." [1]. In the abstract you will find the following: Attempts to reproduce the condition in laboratory animals have been unsuccessful, and no condition similar to TOS has been reported in the scientific literature. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240833/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240833/

maus42 10y ago
Well, it's a newspaper article written by who would be a source, of sorts: >The FIS - the government agency responsible for toxic oil syndrome - refused to release details of the fieldwork carried out or any background information. However, the families described in the reports were given code numbers and these could be matched against the official list of victims which then became part of the trial documentation. Eventually we identified the families supposedly interviewed for the key epidemiological reports and went to see them. I'd be interested if they have any full detailed notes about interviews published anywhere, other than the documentary.
lolc 10y ago
The article is from 2001, the study you mention from 2002. Also that part was covered in my opinion, as the article states "Nor was the oil theory underpinned by any laboratory science. In the years since the 1981 outbreak, the suspect oils have been analysed in leading laboratories throughout the world. No chemical, or contaminant, that would account for the symptoms observed in the afectados has ever been found." Sure we could deplore the lack of citations. Of all the newspapers I read, only one lists sources at the end of the article. Unfortunately it's not common practice.

maus42 10y ago

Well, it's a newspaper article written by who would be a source, of sorts: >The FIS - the government agency responsible for toxic oil syndrome - refused to release details of the fieldwork carried out or any background information. However, the families described in the reports were given code numbers and these could be matched against the official list of victims which then became part of the trial documentation. Eventually we identified the families supposedly interviewed for the key epidemiological reports and went to see them. I'd be interested if they have any full detailed notes about interviews published anywhere, other than the documentary.

lolc 10y ago

The article is from 2001, the study you mention from 2002. Also that part was covered in my opinion, as the article states "Nor was the oil theory underpinned by any laboratory science. In the years since the 1981 outbreak, the suspect oils have been analysed in leading laboratories throughout the world. No chemical, or contaminant, that would account for the symptoms observed in the afectados has ever been found." Sure we could deplore the lack of citations. Of all the newspapers I read, only one lists sources at the end of the article. Unfortunately it's not common practice.