4 ms·

Shouldn't it be required to list funding sources on research? It's surprising that I still see studies about the benefits of wine, chocolate, coffee, or basica

Shouldn't it be required to list funding sources on research? It's surprising that I still see studies about the benefits of wine, chocolate, coffee, or basically any other vice as being healthy and life extending. It's not surprising that these studies are often funded by the industries themselves without mentioning it as a disclosure in the research or in the articles promoting the research.

thereisnospork 9y ago
It's kind of a catch-22 though, who other than the relevant industry has the money and interest to do an in-depth study on relatively minor and long term effects? Goes for 'positive' studies like coffee as well as negative ones like BPA. We've got to find a way to vet studies on their merits regardless or in spite of the conflicts of interest that are funding them.
- erentz 9y ago
  I’m sure this won’t be a popular answer but: The government does. It’s called taking care of public health. Something squarely in the domain of the government, hence why the NIH and CDC exist. They shouldn’t have to go to industries that have a conflict of interest to seek funding on studies for public health issues.
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    > The government does. And to extend that reasoning, the public does. We need to fund these things, which means paying taxes.
Thriptic 9y ago
You are supposed to list any potential conflicts of interest when publishing study results in academic journals.
DoreenMichele 9y ago
I have a serious medical condition. I found that a particular brand of salt was very beneficial. I became an affiliate and had ads on my health blog for that brand of salt. People accused me of having a conflict of interest and just trying to make money off of sick people. I am very leery of medical advice where I know doctors are basically there to prescribe drugs and surgeries when I know from experience I can get better results from diet and lifestyle. But talking about that is a huge shitshow. Most people don't want to hear that. I don't know how to solve this. The money needs to come from somewhere, but the minute money is involved, no one trusts what you say and it seems to not matter the order in which that association happens. Being a believer in the product because it worked for you and trying to make money on something you believe in makes you one of those MLM people in the minds of a lot of people.
- empath75 9y ago
  Because unless you can back it up with double blind studies showing effectiveness, you are selling snake oil. You simply don’t know if it worked for you. You used it and got better, but you have no idea if it caused the improvement or not.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- Spooky23 9y ago
  If you don't want to be accused of being a shill, don't shill.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    What I want is to share useful information with people who have largely been failed by conventional medicine and also somehow pay my bills. I have literally given away information for free for years. I have also been very poor for years. These two facts are not unrelated. Doctors are not somehow above having a conflict of interest. One cancer doctor* went to prison for his heinous treatment of patients for personal profit, some of whom never actually had cancer. This isn't some problem unique to me or unique to people who aren't medical professionals. The entire health industry has a problem here. Also, that's a personal attack and violates HN guidelines. * https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/10/cancer-doctor-sentenced-years-horrific-fraud/29996107/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/10/cancer...
psyc 9y ago
I’d be much more surprised if those things were pure vices with no benefits.
- taneq 9y ago
  Kind of a corollary to the No Free Lunch theorem: No vice is entirely without upside. eg. Alcohol was a safe form of calorie storage before refrigeration.
an_account 9y ago
It’s my understanding that the scientific consensus is that coffee is actually pretty great for you, as long as it’s not interrupting your sleep.

thereisnospork 9y ago

It's kind of a catch-22 though, who other than the relevant industry has the money and interest to do an in-depth study on relatively minor and long term effects? Goes for 'positive' studies like coffee as well as negative ones like BPA. We've got to find a way to vet studies on their merits regardless or in spite of the conflicts of interest that are funding them.

erentz 9y ago
I’m sure this won’t be a popular answer but: The government does. It’s called taking care of public health. Something squarely in the domain of the government, hence why the NIH and CDC exist. They shouldn’t have to go to industries that have a conflict of interest to seek funding on studies for public health issues.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > The government does. And to extend that reasoning, the public does. We need to fund these things, which means paying taxes.

Thriptic 9y ago

You are supposed to list any potential conflicts of interest when publishing study results in academic journals.

DoreenMichele 9y ago

I have a serious medical condition. I found that a particular brand of salt was very beneficial. I became an affiliate and had ads on my health blog for that brand of salt. People accused me of having a conflict of interest and just trying to make money off of sick people. I am very leery of medical advice where I know doctors are basically there to prescribe drugs and surgeries when I know from experience I can get better results from diet and lifestyle. But talking about that is a huge shitshow. Most people don't want to hear that. I don't know how to solve this. The money needs to come from somewhere, but the minute money is involved, no one trusts what you say and it seems to not matter the order in which that association happens. Being a believer in the product because it worked for you and trying to make money on something you believe in makes you one of those MLM people in the minds of a lot of people.

empath75 9y ago
Because unless you can back it up with double blind studies showing effectiveness, you are selling snake oil. You simply don’t know if it worked for you. You used it and got better, but you have no idea if it caused the improvement or not.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
Spooky23 9y ago
If you don't want to be accused of being a shill, don't shill.
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  What I want is to share useful information with people who have largely been failed by conventional medicine and also somehow pay my bills. I have literally given away information for free for years. I have also been very poor for years. These two facts are not unrelated. Doctors are not somehow above having a conflict of interest. One cancer doctor* went to prison for his heinous treatment of patients for personal profit, some of whom never actually had cancer. This isn't some problem unique to me or unique to people who aren't medical professionals. The entire health industry has a problem here. Also, that's a personal attack and violates HN guidelines. * https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/10/cancer-doctor-sentenced-years-horrific-fraud/29996107/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/10/cancer...

psyc 9y ago

I’d be much more surprised if those things were pure vices with no benefits.

taneq 9y ago
Kind of a corollary to the No Free Lunch theorem: No vice is entirely without upside. eg. Alcohol was a safe form of calorie storage before refrigeration.

an_account 9y ago

It’s my understanding that the scientific consensus is that coffee is actually pretty great for you, as long as it’s not interrupting your sleep.