4 ms·

> If indeed the researchers did conceal that the subjects had other exposure to asbestos, that would be pretty bad? It depends. Were the subjects actually expo

> If indeed the researchers did conceal that the subjects had other exposure to asbestos, that would be pretty bad? It depends. Were the subjects actually exposed in a meaningful way to another source of asbestos, or did the corporate lawyers go fishing through past address history, purchases, etc. and will argue things like "Subject A visited Australia ten years before the study and was in a city where some older structures were made using asbestos-infused concrete. Did the researchers think to ask their subjects if they'd traveled to Australia?"

mkagenius 3y ago
> Were the subjects actually exposed in a meaningful way to another source of asbestos, or did the corporate lawyers go fishing through past address history, purchases, etc. Ideally that should be part of the research paper if done diligently, refuting them even before people doubt them.
- notahacker 3y ago
  Sure, but if people carrying out research were required to forensically examine the history of every research participant to the standard of a corporate law firm trying to find an angle to sue them, no research would ever be done.
- danuker 3y ago
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7317550/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7317550/ > The present study has several limitations. It is both retrospective and uncontrolled, and the cases were submitted in medico‐legal consultation, all of which potentially introduce bias. I think the researchers were quite open about what they did.
DebtDeflation 3y ago
>Were the subjects actually exposed in a meaningful way to another source of asbestos One of the subjects previously filed a workers comp claim for asbestos exposure at a textile plant where she worked, despite being considered to have had no asbestos exposure other than from cosmetic talc for the purposes of the quoted study. https://retractionwatch.com/2023/01/24/jj-subsidiary-alleges-fraud-in-paper-that-linked-cosmetic-talc-with-mesothelioma/ https://retractionwatch.com/2023/01/24/jj-subsidiary-alleges...

mkagenius 3y ago

> Were the subjects actually exposed in a meaningful way to another source of asbestos, or did the corporate lawyers go fishing through past address history, purchases, etc. Ideally that should be part of the research paper if done diligently, refuting them even before people doubt them.

notahacker 3y ago
Sure, but if people carrying out research were required to forensically examine the history of every research participant to the standard of a corporate law firm trying to find an angle to sue them, no research would ever be done.
danuker 3y ago
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7317550/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7317550/ > The present study has several limitations. It is both retrospective and uncontrolled, and the cases were submitted in medico‐legal consultation, all of which potentially introduce bias. I think the researchers were quite open about what they did.

DebtDeflation 3y ago

>Were the subjects actually exposed in a meaningful way to another source of asbestos One of the subjects previously filed a workers comp claim for asbestos exposure at a textile plant where she worked, despite being considered to have had no asbestos exposure other than from cosmetic talc for the purposes of the quoted study. https://retractionwatch.com/2023/01/24/jj-subsidiary-alleges-fraud-in-paper-that-linked-cosmetic-talc-with-mesothelioma/ https://retractionwatch.com/2023/01/24/jj-subsidiary-alleges...