2 ms·

You mean Anthony Samsel ? If so, he's known to have published shoddy research along with Seneff that makes wild claims about glyphosate being the cause of many

by 7sigma 10y ago

You mean Anthony Samsel ? If so, he's known to have published shoddy research along with Seneff that makes wild claims about glyphosate being the cause of many ills like autism and celiac disease based on correlation and without much evidence Steven Novella thoroughly debunks this: http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/ http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/ Edit: spelling

adsfqwop 10y ago
You do understand that there is a vast financial interest in "debunking" scientific findings like this? The first red flag that there are corporate interests behind any "debunking" effort is that an actually serious finding is not discussed openly, but various outlets immediately go for the discredit and debunk method. That's corporate modus operandi 101 for burying inconvenient people and data.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  You shouldn't try to generally debunk debunking, becaust it's a completely irrational thing to do. Just explain where a specific criticism fails.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  Except Novella's critique is entirely reasonable...
- 7sigma 10y ago
  Maybe instead of being cynical about people's motives you should try to go through what they are saying and see if it makes sense or not, or if the evidence its based upon is correct. "The first red flag that there are corporate interests behind any "debunking" effort is that an actually serious finding is not discussed openly" So which finding was not discussed properly in the link i posted?
tcj_phx 10y ago
Sometimes those writers have good points, sometimes they engage in propaganda campaigns to protect the medical guild's interests. For example, Hariett Hall is a regular defender science-free psychiatry. Psychiatric residents are trained to think that Wall Street's palliative patent medicines are useful, when the actual science has pointed at causes of many psychiatric disorders since the 1970's. The anti-psychiatry movement is about to reach a tipping point, /methinks, and the science based medicine folks will have some crow to eat.

by 7sigma 10y ago

adsfqwop 10y ago

You do understand that there is a vast financial interest in "debunking" scientific findings like this? The first red flag that there are corporate interests behind any "debunking" effort is that an actually serious finding is not discussed openly, but various outlets immediately go for the discredit and debunk method. That's corporate modus operandi 101 for burying inconvenient people and data.

pessimizer 10y ago
You shouldn't try to generally debunk debunking, becaust it's a completely irrational thing to do. Just explain where a specific criticism fails.
throwaway729 10y ago
Except Novella's critique is entirely reasonable...
7sigma 10y ago
Maybe instead of being cynical about people's motives you should try to go through what they are saying and see if it makes sense or not, or if the evidence its based upon is correct. "The first red flag that there are corporate interests behind any "debunking" effort is that an actually serious finding is not discussed openly" So which finding was not discussed properly in the link i posted?

tcj_phx 10y ago

Sometimes those writers have good points, sometimes they engage in propaganda campaigns to protect the medical guild's interests. For example, Hariett Hall is a regular defender science-free psychiatry. Psychiatric residents are trained to think that Wall Street's palliative patent medicines are useful, when the actual science has pointed at causes of many psychiatric disorders since the 1970's. The anti-psychiatry movement is about to reach a tipping point, /methinks, and the science based medicine folks will have some crow to eat.