3 ms·

Fossil fuels, sugar vs fat… Covid-19

by newsclues 5y ago

Croftengea 5y ago
I think that fossil fuel scientific bias goth both ways.
- mistrial9 5y ago
  "goth bias" apparently
- SQueeeeeL 5y ago
  This comment makes me feel like I live in a very boring cyperpunk dystopia
- mistrial9 5y ago
  comments above say it is not possible to lack bias, given a system of funders, competing Principal Investigators, and imperfect researchers. The comment "fossil fuel scientific bias goes both ways" reduces that even more to "both of two sides do this" which leaps into a simplistic duality, where in fact there is system and multiple topics. In other words, this comment leads to direct polarized partisanship.. far removed from actual scientific practice If topic at hand is "How Industry Weaponizes Research", the comment "fossil fuel scientific bias goes both ways" of "both sides" (as if there were only two sides to anything) is an example of "How to Weaponize comments on YNews" (!)
- queuebert 5y ago
  Possibly, but one way has MUCH worse consequences than the other.
- newsclues 5y ago
  Sorry I should be more specific I was thinking about leaded gasoline, but Exxon hide climate change data for decades as well
gruez 5y ago
>sugar vs fat the strange part about that was why there was no counter-propaganda from the fat side. Surely any PR person worth their salt would pay some scientists to poke holes in studies saying that your products are bad? >Covid-19 do tell.
- toomanybeersies 5y ago
  Regarding sugar and fat, it's two sides of the same coin. Food companies just released a bunch of low-fat products alongside their regular products.
- csee 5y ago
  Covid-19: lockdowns caused a huge transfer of wealth from small businesses and services to big tech, media and Amazon. Did that motivate decision making and political pressure? I have no idea - perhaps not. But the financial incentive from certain actors was there.
- newsclues 5y ago
  How many years did it take to debunk well funded science misinformation? There is a chance that will occur again. https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635 https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635
  - SyzygistSix 5y ago
    The article was incredibly unspecific. No mention if the data from that site ended up being used. No mention that there were multiple sites run by multiple companies doing the testing, which is normal. What stage trials were these? Again, no mention. This is b.s. fearmongering, as if sharps in the wrong bin means the drug was not tested for efficacy or safety. I lived with someone project managing a failed pharmaceutical testing run. They throw the data out and use the accurate data from the many other sites. Or do the trials over. It happens. It wastes lots of money but it is no big deal in the grand scheme of things and certainly does not mean the drug is approved without adequate safety and efficacy testing.
- webmaven 5y ago

Fossil fuels, sugar vs fat… Covid-19

Croftengea 5y ago

I think that fossil fuel scientific bias goth both ways.

mistrial9 5y ago
"goth bias" apparently
SQueeeeeL 5y ago
This comment makes me feel like I live in a very boring cyperpunk dystopia
mistrial9 5y ago
comments above say it is not possible to lack bias, given a system of funders, competing Principal Investigators, and imperfect researchers. The comment "fossil fuel scientific bias goes both ways" reduces that even more to "both of two sides do this" which leaps into a simplistic duality, where in fact there is system and multiple topics. In other words, this comment leads to direct polarized partisanship.. far removed from actual scientific practice If topic at hand is "How Industry Weaponizes Research", the comment "fossil fuel scientific bias goes both ways" of "both sides" (as if there were only two sides to anything) is an example of "How to Weaponize comments on YNews" (!)
queuebert 5y ago
Possibly, but one way has MUCH worse consequences than the other.
newsclues 5y ago
Sorry I should be more specific I was thinking about leaded gasoline, but Exxon hide climate change data for decades as well

gruez 5y ago

>sugar vs fat the strange part about that was why there was no counter-propaganda from the fat side. Surely any PR person worth their salt would pay some scientists to poke holes in studies saying that your products are bad? >Covid-19 do tell.

toomanybeersies 5y ago
Regarding sugar and fat, it's two sides of the same coin. Food companies just released a bunch of low-fat products alongside their regular products.
csee 5y ago
Covid-19: lockdowns caused a huge transfer of wealth from small businesses and services to big tech, media and Amazon. Did that motivate decision making and political pressure? I have no idea - perhaps not. But the financial incentive from certain actors was there.
newsclues 5y ago
How many years did it take to debunk well funded science misinformation? There is a chance that will occur again. https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635 https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635
- SyzygistSix 5y ago
  The article was incredibly unspecific. No mention if the data from that site ended up being used. No mention that there were multiple sites run by multiple companies doing the testing, which is normal. What stage trials were these? Again, no mention. This is b.s. fearmongering, as if sharps in the wrong bin means the drug was not tested for efficacy or safety. I lived with someone project managing a failed pharmaceutical testing run. They throw the data out and use the accurate data from the many other sites. Or do the trials over. It happens. It wastes lots of money but it is no big deal in the grand scheme of things and certainly does not mean the drug is approved without adequate safety and efficacy testing.
webmaven 5y ago