4 ms·
Agree. Article contains misinformation and should be flagged. In fact the bacteria in question is often and readily consumed. Not to mention the fact that we ar
by crazydoggers 3y ago
Agree. Article contains misinformation and should be flagged. In fact the bacteria in question is often and readily consumed. Not to mention the fact that we are awash in bacteria all the time.
The source stating that the bacteria are considered pathogens, is selling his book. The link to the National Academy of Sciences is also broken.
Also most bacteria can be opportunistic pathogens, depending on the situation, even the ones in our gut.
So while the ethics can be deemed questionable, the article presents the situation as if harm was certainly done, when in the most likely case not a single person was adversely effected.
- MagicMoonlight 3y agoThe common cold is also readily consumed and almost harmless, doesn’t mean you get to spray it in schools for the banta
- crazydoggers 3y agoI agree. But what does that have to do with an article that presents unjustified assertions? The issue is that if you call something pathogenic, and make the case that people were harmed, then the article should support that which it doesn’t. Hence it’s click bait. Let’s say I want people to take the Covid vaccine. Should I write articles with appeals to emotion, quotes from people writing books, and circumstantial evidence? Or let’s say I want to point out that Covid vaccines carry risks. Should I write articles with appeals to emotion, quotes from people writing books, and circumstantial evidence? Bad articles and bad science are not okay just because we agree with the assessment.