3 ms·
Disclaimer: I don't know anything about this. My narrative detector is going off. The guy found that most supplements didn't actually have real ingredients, w
by ctoth 2y ago
Disclaimer: I don't know anything about this.
My narrative detector is going off.
The guy found that most supplements didn't actually have real ingredients, which is incredibly believable.
The guy is now being discredited.
Does this mean Supplements were fine all along? Somehow I doubt this!
Sketchy people on both sides--why are so many industries like this? Supplements are an obvious one but have you tried buying a mattress/adjustable bed recently?
- inglor_cz 2y agoThe article mentions that he has conflicts of interest. Possibly his intent was to discredit some supplements in order to boost others?
- baxtr 2y ago> Thompson, now a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford University, sparked the initial inquiry. As an undergraduate, he and Newmaster co-authored a 2014 paper on forest plant diversity, published in Biodiversity and Conservation. Years later, while completing his Ph.D. at the University of British Columbia (UBC), Thompson began to suspect that Newmaster had repurposed data from a different study by another student. Sounds legit to me. I think this is more likely explanation due to Occams razor.
- shkkmo 2y ago> Sketchy people on both sides You can be on the fench about the efficacy of supplements without supporting a fraudster. One side has a whole slate of respected a scientists in the field call the research papers BS. The other side has a single scientist who hid his conflicts of interests and has a well established pattern of lies.
- tqi 2y agoSo the evidence to support your prior was believable, and the evidence against that that evidence also supports your prior?