3 ms·
Well, the WHO is also an advocate of the polio vaccine. What accurate conclusions are we supposed to make using this logic really. Unless you're saying it's in
by sillyfluke 2y ago
Well, the WHO is also an advocate of the polio vaccine. What accurate conclusions are we supposed to make using this logic really. Unless you're saying it's in its interest to advocate the use of mobile phones. But people are already using their phones without the need for WHO pushing it down their throats?
- Eumenes 2y agoThey can be right on things, wrong on others. Its a big organization. This type of research will be cited in the future, which could negate interest/developments regarding tumors related to mobile phones. Why give a researcher $50k for a study on this subject when the WHO sponsored paper already said it has null effect?
- sillyfluke 2y agoThat's why you should attack the study and not the org. If the study/analysis is exposed convincingly as garbage the org takes a hit anyway. If someone bothered to check that the main opiod supporting citation was actually some random letter to the editor someone wrote and not an actual study perhaps they would have saved a bunch of people a lot of grief early on.
- SketchySeaBeast 2y ago> They can be right on things, wrong on others. Its a big organization. Didn't you just nullify your original point?