3 ms·

Not the same. They are not giving advice or recommendations, they are reporting the results of a study. That's the beauty of a good scientific study: you do n

Not the same. They are not giving advice or recommendations, they are reporting the results of a study. That's the beauty of a good scientific study: you do not have to trust the author. In fact don't, the more people try to find errors the better.

silent_cal 5y ago
Please spare me. You "science" worshippers got some good mileage out of this myth in the past, but now it is obvious that the last thing you want is for people to criticize Pfizer, the CDC, the NIH, or anyone within 100ft of them. In fact, their critics are being systematically purged from the world's largest communications channels, and they are almost always censored on this site as well. "Science" can't handle any criticism whatsoever.
acdha 5y ago
Note: you're replying to someone who recirculates propaganda from antivaxers like Alex Berenson. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29322688 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29322688
- silent_cal 5y ago
  Alex Berenson, unlike Pfizer, has nothing to gain from taking the journalistic stance he holds. In fact he was banned from Twitter for it. In your mind, an independent/skeptical/critical journalist is a propagandist, and Pfizer is a neutral public health authority? Time to wake up.
  - bildung 5y ago
    Berenson apparently was already caught earning money with false information about cannabis effects, and has zero medical background.
  - snovv_crash 5y ago
    Well, there are also a bunch of people who are by default untrusting of authority who will latch onto and give YouTube ad revenue to anybody who puts out material that matches their confirmation bias. If Alex Berenson was saying we should all get the vaccine he would never have gathered the following he did. So don't pretend populist journalists don't have a monetary incentive to propound the material they show, either.
  - acdha 5y ago
    Alex Berenson relies on attention to sell his books (remember when he was telling parents that cannabis causes psychosis and violence? Great way to get on TV telling people about your book.) and his COVID denial sells ads on his substack and almost turned into a Fox show. Pfizer also has a potential conflict of interest, which is why people are talking about what they've done going through the scientific process. That's very different from where Berenson makes up something outrageous, hits send, and then complains about being “canceled” if he gets criticized by real journalists or scientists because Pfizer employees people who are experts in the field, runs studies following standard methodology, publishes their data and analysis and it's critically examined by independent experts. That doesn't mean it's perfect but it's a completely different level of rigor than a self-published screed.
macinjosh 5y ago
General Mills had studies showing sugary cereals are a part of a healthy diet.
- yvdriess 5y ago
  Did they publish the study under their own name, being up front about their conflict of interest, or did they pay someone else for the study (and desired outcome)?
gentleman11 5y ago
Part of being a good scientific study is having unbiased experimental scientists run the study with no conflicts of interest. The pressure on that team will be incredible
- tremon 5y ago
  No, part of being a good scientific study is being upfront about any (even potential) conflicts of interest. Most studies aren't interest-free, do you think e.g. CERN doesn't have a vested interest when it publishes studies about the LHC experiments?
  - gentleman11 5y ago
    There have been a lot of scandals in the news lately about low quality research due to these conflicts of interest in the past https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074... https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-health-research-is-fraudulent-until-proved-otherwise/ https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-hea...

silent_cal 5y ago

Please spare me. You "science" worshippers got some good mileage out of this myth in the past, but now it is obvious that the last thing you want is for people to criticize Pfizer, the CDC, the NIH, or anyone within 100ft of them. In fact, their critics are being systematically purged from the world's largest communications channels, and they are almost always censored on this site as well. "Science" can't handle any criticism whatsoever.

acdha 5y ago

Note: you're replying to someone who recirculates propaganda from antivaxers like Alex Berenson. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29322688 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29322688

silent_cal 5y ago
Alex Berenson, unlike Pfizer, has nothing to gain from taking the journalistic stance he holds. In fact he was banned from Twitter for it. In your mind, an independent/skeptical/critical journalist is a propagandist, and Pfizer is a neutral public health authority? Time to wake up.
- bildung 5y ago
  Berenson apparently was already caught earning money with false information about cannabis effects, and has zero medical background.
- snovv_crash 5y ago
  Well, there are also a bunch of people who are by default untrusting of authority who will latch onto and give YouTube ad revenue to anybody who puts out material that matches their confirmation bias. If Alex Berenson was saying we should all get the vaccine he would never have gathered the following he did. So don't pretend populist journalists don't have a monetary incentive to propound the material they show, either.
- acdha 5y ago
  Alex Berenson relies on attention to sell his books (remember when he was telling parents that cannabis causes psychosis and violence? Great way to get on TV telling people about your book.) and his COVID denial sells ads on his substack and almost turned into a Fox show. Pfizer also has a potential conflict of interest, which is why people are talking about what they've done going through the scientific process. That's very different from where Berenson makes up something outrageous, hits send, and then complains about being “canceled” if he gets criticized by real journalists or scientists because Pfizer employees people who are experts in the field, runs studies following standard methodology, publishes their data and analysis and it's critically examined by independent experts. That doesn't mean it's perfect but it's a completely different level of rigor than a self-published screed.

macinjosh 5y ago

General Mills had studies showing sugary cereals are a part of a healthy diet.

yvdriess 5y ago
Did they publish the study under their own name, being up front about their conflict of interest, or did they pay someone else for the study (and desired outcome)?

gentleman11 5y ago

Part of being a good scientific study is having unbiased experimental scientists run the study with no conflicts of interest. The pressure on that team will be incredible

tremon 5y ago
No, part of being a good scientific study is being upfront about any (even potential) conflicts of interest. Most studies aren't interest-free, do you think e.g. CERN doesn't have a vested interest when it publishes studies about the LHC experiments?
- gentleman11 5y ago
  There have been a lot of scandals in the news lately about low quality research due to these conflicts of interest in the past https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074... https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-health-research-is-fraudulent-until-proved-otherwise/ https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-hea...