4 ms·

> After all, the author has just spent a lot of words tearing down the (generally well-meaning) attempts of scientists (and others) to prolong the lives of peop

> After all, the author has just spent a lot of words tearing down the (generally well-meaning) attempts of scientists (and others) to prolong the lives of people who are diagnosed with cancer. You are showing massive bias here. It's ok to criticize science, it's normal and necessary even, but to "believe" in science and "well-meaning" of scientists and trust their opinions and conclusions is not, it's harmful, like in this case causing literal unnecessary suffering of real people and robbing them and their families while they are.

mft_ 7y ago
To answer your point directly: for sure, I have a bias that the majority of scientists who work in cancer research generally mean well. But holding a positive view of (bias towards?) such people and their motives doesn't constitute not being willing to criticise science? -- In this case, my frustration is that the author isn't intelligently criticising the science; I totally agree with you that science (and related issues, such as FDA approvals, or cost:benefit analyses of drugs) should of course always be open to exploration and criticism. Instead, he's written an opinion piece masquerading as science, by using a variety of supportive quotes and excerpts to build a general case that cancer is big business, that there's a kind-of dark nefarious industry behind it all, and that people who work in this area are complicit in hurting patients with cancer. (It feels one step away from a conspiracy theory.) By confusing totally different topics (e.g. marketing of cancer drugs, vs. value of screening, vs. cost:benefit of cancer treatments, vs. side-effects of cancer drugs, etc.), by paying insufficient attention to any of them, and by employing such a broad brush, he turns a set of highly complex topics into a pointless oozing vat of negativity, possibly aligned with his workd-view.
- stillherebitch 7y ago
  > 'Instead, he's written an opinion piece masquerading as science, by using a variety of supportive quotes and excerpts to build a general case that cancer is big business, that there's a kind-of dark nefarious industry behind it all, and that people who work in this area are complicit in hurting patients with cancer. (It feels one step away from a conspiracy theory.)' Conspiracies aren't theories. They're crimes. Where did Adolf Hitler learn eugenics from? The USA. You think all of the eugenicist just died off, or somehow lost interest in exterminating people? Your incredulity says nothing about the likelyhood of this being true, and everything about your own profound, typically American naivete.

mft_ 7y ago

To answer your point directly: for sure, I have a bias that the majority of scientists who work in cancer research generally mean well. But holding a positive view of (bias towards?) such people and their motives doesn't constitute not being willing to criticise science? -- In this case, my frustration is that the author isn't intelligently criticising the science; I totally agree with you that science (and related issues, such as FDA approvals, or cost:benefit analyses of drugs) should of course always be open to exploration and criticism. Instead, he's written an opinion piece masquerading as science, by using a variety of supportive quotes and excerpts to build a general case that cancer is big business, that there's a kind-of dark nefarious industry behind it all, and that people who work in this area are complicit in hurting patients with cancer. (It feels one step away from a conspiracy theory.) By confusing totally different topics (e.g. marketing of cancer drugs, vs. value of screening, vs. cost:benefit of cancer treatments, vs. side-effects of cancer drugs, etc.), by paying insufficient attention to any of them, and by employing such a broad brush, he turns a set of highly complex topics into a pointless oozing vat of negativity, possibly aligned with his workd-view.

stillherebitch 7y ago
> 'Instead, he's written an opinion piece masquerading as science, by using a variety of supportive quotes and excerpts to build a general case that cancer is big business, that there's a kind-of dark nefarious industry behind it all, and that people who work in this area are complicit in hurting patients with cancer. (It feels one step away from a conspiracy theory.)' Conspiracies aren't theories. They're crimes. Where did Adolf Hitler learn eugenics from? The USA. You think all of the eugenicist just died off, or somehow lost interest in exterminating people? Your incredulity says nothing about the likelyhood of this being true, and everything about your own profound, typically American naivete.