5 ms·
The burden of proof is on the one making unsupported claims, not on the one questioning the unsupported claims. (It's tedious to post supporting studies on eve
by theptip 9y ago
The burden of proof is on the one making unsupported claims, not on the one questioning the unsupported claims.
(It's tedious to post supporting studies on every post, so there's nothing nefarious about claims being initially unsupported.)
I do agree that the "be careful..." comment is perhaps open to being interpreted as snarky, though it's always hard to infer the intent in a forum such as this.
- naravara 9y ago>The burden of proof is on the one making unsupported claims, not on the one questioning the unsupported claims. When public health issues are concerned, the burden of proof is on the ones saying exposure does not present any risks worth worrying about. The FDA doesn't usually come in with the approach that we should just try everything out and see how it goes.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- EliRivers 9y agoIt's low frequency radio waves from submarines. No, wait, it's copies of Jane Austen novels, that's what causing the problem. Hang on; it's headphones being worn by people near you. That's what doing it. Wait one; it's the after-effects of that landfill of ET game cartridges. If you disagree, have you got any proof that these aren't the causes? Otherwise I guess it's start removing Jane Austen novels from the libraries.
- naravara 9y agoSince you’re so comfortable with it, just go ahead and dose yourself with everything you can get your hands on. Here in the real world people express some hesitation before shoveling suspicious new products down their gullets.
- mmmpop 9y agoEver since I switched my entire diet to Soylent my diarrhea has never been better!
- dekhn 9y agothe FDA is actually very permissive when it comes to food - generally, things are allowed to be in it unless there is strong evidence it's harmful. It's the opposite with drugs.
- naravara 9y agoIt’s permissive about foods that are derived from things that are already generally regarded as safe. If you come up with some kind of new petrochemical food-item to mimic tofu they’ll want you to get some pre-market approval first. If you’re starting up a new large food business, you’re also going to be subject to inspection to make sure your processes are safe and you’re not adulterating your products, intentionally or unintentionally, with stuff that might not be safe.
- brazzledazzle 9y agoWouldn't "Miracle Fruit" be an example of the FDA not being permissive when it comes to food?
- dekhn 9y agothe reason I said "be careful" is that I'm a staff scientist who already has done his due diligence, and often, when I ask people to provide refuting studies, they just go on Google Scholar and return with papers whose titles match their pre-existing conclusion. If you try to do that in an academic setting, you'll be laughed out of the room (and nobody will trust what you say any more). I'm just working to save time by making people who make outrageous claims do the work to produce supporting evidence. I'm really tired of people (especially non-scientists) citing articles they haven't read or aren't qualified to evaluate.
- theptip 9y agoAbsolutely fair.