4 ms·

How is that hilarious? Do you expect Exxon or Facebook to fund studies on honey? If you believe honey has good properties, and you even go into the honey busin

How is that hilarious? Do you expect Exxon or Facebook to fund studies on honey? If you believe honey has good properties, and you even go into the honey business because you believe in it so much, do you just need to wait around until an independent researcher gets the idea to study honey to find out about it? How about this: can you point to any part of the study which is improper or wrong or looks like this bias may have affected it? This argument reminds me of back in the day how republicans lambasted al gore for both caring about climate change, and being invested in solar panel companies. Maybe the reason he invested in the companies is exactly because he cares about the issue.

umvi 4y ago
It would be less hilarious if there were more "honey bad funded by big honey" studies. But those seem to be rare. "Alcohol bad for you funded by Budweiser" stories never seem to show up on HN but if they did they would immediately get my attention.
NalNezumi 4y ago
I'm a bit perplexed by your comments (and a sibling one) who seems to take great ire (offense?) to a comment that take a part out of the linked article that I personally found "Hillarious". >How about this: can you point to any part of the study which is improper or wrong or looks like this bias may have affected it? The comment that I commented on did exactly this; did you expect me to recite that part? I get your criticism if I directly commented on the article, but I merely commented on the additional detail already presented in a comment. (or are you suggesting that a requirement for finding something hilarious is a thoroughly analyzed rebuttal on top of an existing criticism?) Also, again, I didn't make any argument, but a comment of a quote (observation) presented in the source material linked by parent comment. so I'd suggest take a step back, read the two comments, ask yourself "what context am I willfully ignoring and putting word in to the commenters mouth" Thanks for your opinion though, interesting fact about politics and al gore
- googlryas 4y ago
  No, the comment you commented on didn't do that. That person was commenting on the reaction to the paper - of the science journos that wrote an article about it, and readers who took the article's take as gospel. Which is why they ended their post with "I guess no one even took the time to read the abstract of the paper". Because the abstract is fairly innocuous and straight forward, as is the conclusion. If your assertion is that GPs criticism is about the confidence intervals and the prevalence of "low certainty" - that is the conclusion of the paper. The researchers can't really know the conclusions until they do the research. So would it be better if they didn't publish their paper since the results weren't a glowing endorsement of honey? Isn't it a good thing they published results and called out the fact that they are low certainty? And if the criticism was the conflict of interest, that is what I responded to.
riku_iki 4y ago
> Do you expect Exxon or Facebook to fund studies on honey? yes, through the public research funds allocated from taxes
- LanceH 4y ago
  Can't wait for the next government drawn food pyramid.
jtbayly 4y ago
You might want to do some reading about something called "conflict of interest."
- googlryas 4y ago
  I'm familiar with it. Great comment.
  - jtbayly 4y ago
    So you have no qualms with the research paid for by tobacco companies or oil companies either, I take it?

umvi 4y ago

It would be less hilarious if there were more "honey bad funded by big honey" studies. But those seem to be rare. "Alcohol bad for you funded by Budweiser" stories never seem to show up on HN but if they did they would immediately get my attention.

NalNezumi 4y ago

I'm a bit perplexed by your comments (and a sibling one) who seems to take great ire (offense?) to a comment that take a part out of the linked article that I personally found "Hillarious". >How about this: can you point to any part of the study which is improper or wrong or looks like this bias may have affected it? The comment that I commented on did exactly this; did you expect me to recite that part? I get your criticism if I directly commented on the article, but I merely commented on the additional detail already presented in a comment. (or are you suggesting that a requirement for finding something hilarious is a thoroughly analyzed rebuttal on top of an existing criticism?) Also, again, I didn't make any argument, but a comment of a quote (observation) presented in the source material linked by parent comment. so I'd suggest take a step back, read the two comments, ask yourself "what context am I willfully ignoring and putting word in to the commenters mouth" Thanks for your opinion though, interesting fact about politics and al gore

googlryas 4y ago
No, the comment you commented on didn't do that. That person was commenting on the reaction to the paper - of the science journos that wrote an article about it, and readers who took the article's take as gospel. Which is why they ended their post with "I guess no one even took the time to read the abstract of the paper". Because the abstract is fairly innocuous and straight forward, as is the conclusion. If your assertion is that GPs criticism is about the confidence intervals and the prevalence of "low certainty" - that is the conclusion of the paper. The researchers can't really know the conclusions until they do the research. So would it be better if they didn't publish their paper since the results weren't a glowing endorsement of honey? Isn't it a good thing they published results and called out the fact that they are low certainty? And if the criticism was the conflict of interest, that is what I responded to.

riku_iki 4y ago

> Do you expect Exxon or Facebook to fund studies on honey? yes, through the public research funds allocated from taxes

LanceH 4y ago
Can't wait for the next government drawn food pyramid.

jtbayly 4y ago

You might want to do some reading about something called "conflict of interest."

googlryas 4y ago
I'm familiar with it. Great comment.
- jtbayly 4y ago
  So you have no qualms with the research paid for by tobacco companies or oil companies either, I take it?