[Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and...

Mon Nov 1 02:14:00 UTC 2010

One thing I ran into was Sucrolose. Manufacture tests had concluded it had
no side effects, while independent studies rattled off the side effects like
an auctioneer (not quite that bad, but there were a lot).

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 31 October 2010 21:53, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 31 October 2010 21:27, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> > I don't think it is worth mentioning, unless every time it is
> > >> mentioned
> > >> > it
> > >> > is done in a way to tell readers that this is not only normal, it is
> > >> > required.
> > >> >
> > >> > Risker/Anne
> > >>
> > >> The history of this issue has involved manufacturers taking control of
> > >> the studies to the extent that unfavorable results were sometimes not
> > >> published while favorable results were. Journal editors cracked down
> on
> > >> that, see:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/165/6/786
> > >>
> > >> Fred
> > >>
> > >>
> > > Well, that has nothing to do with who paid for the study. It has to do
> > > with
> > > whether or not they reported all of the studies that they did. The two
> > > are
> > > not connected. What happens, too, when studies are carried out but the
> > > scientists cannot find someone to peer review them or publish them,
> even
> > > with massive critique? This happens a lot. Does that mean the study is
> > > unreported, or simply that nobody wants to waste time or space on them?
> > >
> > > Risker/Anne
> > >
> >
> > You don't seem to have read the cited article. And to be changing the
> > subject. Peer review decides what is to be published, based on quality
> > and significance. Errors are made as scientists hold views as to what
> > that is at any particular time and venue which may be more or less
> > enlightened.
> >
> > Fred
> >
>
>
> I read it, Fred. And the subject of the thread was "should we be saying
> that
> the drug company paid for the research"; at least that's what it was when I
> commented.
>
> My point still stands. The drug company *always* pays for the research.
> Mentioning it is irrelevant to the quality of the article itself.
>
> If there is a specific controversy related to the quality of the research
> that was done, or the manner in which it was conducted and/or reported,
> then
> *if there are reliable sources that discuss such a controversy*, that may
> be
> significant and/or relevant enough to add to the article.
>
> Risker/Anne
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>