11–20 of 46 posts
This is the only source I could find with a quick search, and it's in spanish [PDF]http://www.fcen.uba.ar/prensa/cable/2010/pdf/Cable_752.pdf
If any of those reading this are in the business of writing news articles, then, please: If you want to tell me about a scientist's report being something fake he cooked up (for fame or because someone paid him to say it or whatever), then first tell me what, scientifically, is or might be wrong with the report, and then tell me about his background and financial incentives and stuff. I believe it's supposed to be go…
While it is true that in the realm of pure logical discourse this fact is irrelevant to the argumentative structure of the original paper, in the real world it is a significant fact that legitimately questions the credibility of the scientist.
I don't think Bayer thought it would be great to make people think this would work, for PR (?) and then to go ahead and NOT be able to fix it. We're not talking about 9/11 or something that you can sort of say "we're stopping another one of those from happening every day."
Instead, we have ONGOING deaths that we don't know the cause of. So if this particular study, and any extrapolated treatment ACTUALLY WORKS. Then yes, it wasn't pesticides. Maybe Bayer is wrong, but the article is pretty clear this is preliminary.
If any of those reading this are in the business of writing news articles, then, please: If you want to tell me about a scientist's report being something fake he cooked up (for fame or because someone paid him to say it or whatever), then first tell me what, scientifically, is or might be wrong with the report, and then tell me about his background and financial incentives and stuff. I believe it's supposed to be go…
If any of those reading this are in the business of writing news articles, then, please: If you want to tell me about a scientist's report being something fake he cooked up (for fame or because someone paid him to say it or whatever), then first tell me what, scientifically, is or might be wrong with the report, and then tell me about his background and financial incentives and stuff. I believe it's supposed to be go…
The gist of this article was not that the original report was "something fake" the scientist "cooked up". It was that the scientist received funding from an interested party that he failed to disclose. While it is true that in the realm of pure logical discourse this fact is irrelevant to the argumentative structure of the original paper, in the real world it is a significant fact that legitimately questions the cred…
If any of those reading this are in the business of writing news articles, then, please: If you want to tell me about a scientist's report being something fake he cooked up (for fame or because someone paid him to say it or whatever), then first tell me what, scientifically, is or might be wrong with the report, and then tell me about his background and financial incentives and stuff. I believe it's supposed to be go…
The way I read the article, the most important fact was that he was paid by Bayer.
If any of those reading this are in the business of writing news articles, then, please: If you want to tell me about a scientist's report being something fake he cooked up (for fame or because someone paid him to say it or whatever), then first tell me what, scientifically, is or might be wrong with the report, and then tell me about his background and financial incentives and stuff. I believe it's supposed to be go…
> I believe it's supposed to be good news-article-writing style to put the most important facts and overview first. The way I read the article, the most important fact was that he was paid by Bayer.
Seems more like an oversight than "nefarious pan-government cum dystopian corporate plot".
a) He didn't use the funding for this study.
b) Science papers aren't opinion articles. Nowhere in the study did he say that the virus and the fungus are exclusively the cause of the epidemic. If you got that impression, that was the media editorializing the study. If he falsified or omitted data, then he's guilty. But all he did was show that these two pathogens are present in collapsed colonies. You can't criticize the guy for something that another writer invented.