Live data from Hacker News

Industry pushes sugary products, while obfuscating the health hazards

ucsf.edu

131–132 of 132 posts

Re: Industry pushes sugary products, while obfuscating the health hazards

#131
post #130
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>a bias just means you have a preconceived view on a topic Yes, but is it not also bias to leap to a conclusion someone is bias because they don't agree with the status quo? > But ~40 mothers also isn't a large enough sample size. I've spoken with many more than that over the past three decades, but I've yet to see a significantly larger sample size in any of the studies on sugar or Red 40. >Being paid [..] is called…

> Yes, but is it not also bias to leap to a conclusion someone is bias because they don't agree with the status quo? I don't think "tu quoque" is a civil way of having a discussion. I didn't use bias as a slur, I was trying to help you argue better (and I explained why you or the mothers you talked to might have a bias -- and it wasn't because you "didn't agree with the status quo"). You appear to be using it as a sl…

I didn't even imply that one shouldn't vaccinate their children.

I really don't know how you took that from anything I've wrote, except that you read it with a very strong bias.

I focused on not dismissing moms who say vaccinations did affect their children.

>I don't think "tu quoque" is a civil way of having a discussion.

Actually, I was addressing the overarching approach to being stuck in a state of understanding that results in refusing to look for more knowledge.

You denying there is any potential for any link at all isn't really based on your personal experience with mother's who've claimed it was the cause. It's based on statistical data you are aware of, but that's all. You not atypical in believing that data is conclusive. That is the "status quo", is it not?

But statistical data is really only a snapshot of a fixed set of data points in time. In terms of human biology there is far more that we do not know than what we do know. The truth is the data we have right now on how the human organism functions isn't even close to complete, nor fully understood, and still quite dispersed and not easily accessible.

I'd like to think studies on the potential ill effects of vaccinating all children should be a priority and listening to mothers who've said their children experienced serious issues should be at the very top of that list of data collected and studied.

And again, to be perfectly clear, I still have not said or implied that one shouldn't vaccinate their children.

Re: Industry pushes sugary products, while obfuscating the health hazards

#132
post #130
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>a bias just means you have a preconceived view on a topic Yes, but is it not also bias to leap to a conclusion someone is bias because they don't agree with the status quo? > But ~40 mothers also isn't a large enough sample size. I've spoken with many more than that over the past three decades, but I've yet to see a significantly larger sample size in any of the studies on sugar or Red 40. >Being paid [..] is called…

> Yes, but is it not also bias to leap to a conclusion someone is bias because they don't agree with the status quo? I don't think "tu quoque" is a civil way of having a discussion. I didn't use bias as a slur, I was trying to help you argue better (and I explained why you or the mothers you talked to might have a bias -- and it wasn't because you "didn't agree with the status quo"). You appear to be using it as a sl…

It's pretty cowardly to accuse someone of urging "mothers to not vaccinate" and then delete the accusation by editing your comments after they've pointed out they've not done that.

You could've stood up and apologized, but you didn't. You slunk in and hid what you said and slunk away instead.

Post reply on HN