3 ms·
If you're going to make a bold claim like that, shouldn't you provide some support? Otherwise you're expecting us to just take an anonymous person's word for it
by airstrike 2y ago
If you're going to make a bold claim like that, shouldn't you provide some support? Otherwise you're expecting us to just take an anonymous person's word for it... and particularly a throwaway account.
You're saying "discount science based not on facts, but on the form in which such science is published" which is utterly unscientific
- throw646577 2y agoI did reply to another comment about my concerns about Diary of a CEO in the context of nutrition advice.
- airstrike 2y agoLooks like concerns about the host, not about the content the interviewees share.
- loco5niner 2y agoMore like "discount anything coming out of the mouth of a CEO", which makes perfect sense.
- airstrike 2y agoNot only does that also not make sense, but guests on the show are not strictly CEOs, which further supports the view that this shallow dismissal is indeed unsupported by evidence.
- deprecative 2y agoIt's a podcast. They're only useful for entertainment. If you take advice from them in a meaningful way you're effectively rolling the dice on tabloid grade slop factories.
- airstrike 2y agoThat's a different statement from the one in the original comment which singles out DOAC as an untrustworthy source
- throw646577 2y agoSo do the BBC, now (the people who employ him on Dragon's Den, the UK shark tank show) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gpz163vg2o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gpz163vg2o
- loco5niner 2y agoYou're right that it was an ignorant statement on my part.