4 ms·

And if someone doesn't trust you, look in the mirror. What do you do to gain trust if someone is continually spreading rumors about you behind your back? http

And if someone doesn't trust you, look in the mirror. What do you do to gain trust if someone is continually spreading rumors about you behind your back? http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm

msandford 13y ago
Well, certainly you don't let things like this happen: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/09/20/patients-endangered-by-failure-of-medical-boards/ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/09/20/patients-endang...
- tokenadult 13y ago
  The author of that thoughtful blog post is, of course, one of the editors at Science-Based Medicine. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-... On his personal blog he uses the screen name "Orac," but he is the same person.
  - msandford 13y ago
    I guess the problem is that on the one hand he's imploring people to trust the science and those performing it, and on the other hand he's showing that those performing it aren't necessarily trustworthy. It's hard for me to look at those two articles and reconcile the information from one of them with the information from the other. Furthermore I have HUGE problems with people saying "LOOK SCIENCE!!" with anything other than physics or chemistry. In those areas where the interactions take place incredibly quickly and there are few compounding variables I love me some science just as much as the next guy. When you start talking about organisms where everything is potentially a confounding variable it's a lot harder for me to excited about things being "proven" via science. For example, fat used to be fine, then in the 80s and 90s it wasn't, now in the aughts and teens it might be again depending on which doctors you talk to. I mean, right now you can't even tell if it's better to get small infrequent doses of no-sunscreen daylight (for the vitamin D) or not. The doctors and scientists are split on this one and there's no real discernable pattern as to which goes on which side. http://www.skincancer.org/healthy-lifestyle/vitamin-d/the-d-dilemma http://www.skincancer.org/healthy-lifestyle/vitamin-d/the-d-... Given that 10 years ago there was no debate whatsoever and now there's a huge debate raging it makes a person a bit circumspect when taking the advice of those who purport to "know" something.
pradocchia 13y ago
The issue has been looked at by various think tanks. The question of trust is relevant to public health policy of course, but also to other areas of governance. If the response is simply "better messaging", that will backfire eventually. Then again, there may be systemic constraints on a more substantive response. A major breakthrough in obesity, chronic disease and/or aging would reset public sentiment.

msandford 13y ago

Well, certainly you don't let things like this happen: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/09/20/patients-endangered-by-failure-of-medical-boards/ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/09/20/patients-endang...

tokenadult 13y ago
The author of that thoughtful blog post is, of course, one of the editors at Science-Based Medicine. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-... On his personal blog he uses the screen name "Orac," but he is the same person.
- msandford 13y ago
  I guess the problem is that on the one hand he's imploring people to trust the science and those performing it, and on the other hand he's showing that those performing it aren't necessarily trustworthy. It's hard for me to look at those two articles and reconcile the information from one of them with the information from the other. Furthermore I have HUGE problems with people saying "LOOK SCIENCE!!" with anything other than physics or chemistry. In those areas where the interactions take place incredibly quickly and there are few compounding variables I love me some science just as much as the next guy. When you start talking about organisms where everything is potentially a confounding variable it's a lot harder for me to excited about things being "proven" via science. For example, fat used to be fine, then in the 80s and 90s it wasn't, now in the aughts and teens it might be again depending on which doctors you talk to. I mean, right now you can't even tell if it's better to get small infrequent doses of no-sunscreen daylight (for the vitamin D) or not. The doctors and scientists are split on this one and there's no real discernable pattern as to which goes on which side. http://www.skincancer.org/healthy-lifestyle/vitamin-d/the-d-dilemma http://www.skincancer.org/healthy-lifestyle/vitamin-d/the-d-... Given that 10 years ago there was no debate whatsoever and now there's a huge debate raging it makes a person a bit circumspect when taking the advice of those who purport to "know" something.

pradocchia 13y ago

The issue has been looked at by various think tanks. The question of trust is relevant to public health policy of course, but also to other areas of governance. If the response is simply "better messaging", that will backfire eventually. Then again, there may be systemic constraints on a more substantive response. A major breakthrough in obesity, chronic disease and/or aging would reset public sentiment.