I think @daltono handled the responses quite well and I'm glad he went out of his way to offer articles that somewhat supported his claims made in the original post. I would not have even commented if he put the articles in the original post as you cannot accept anything you're told without proper evidence. For example: if I were to tell you that eating raw, organic potatoes made your vertical jump increase by 60% you would say I'm an idiot if I didn't prove to you that it did so (it doesn't, I was just making an analogy).
And I say somewhat supported his claims because there is not enough research done on a few of these topics, the current research is inconclusive on others, and there are a few misinterpretations present in a few of the others.
The problem is, the powers that be have plenty of money to buy studies that make everything seem safe. The commentors before me refute everything you say with "studies" that were most likely concluded in similar ways to how cigarettes were "proven safe" for so many years. Yet they give you that one.
The funny thing with this is that if more scientists were bought out by corporations, we'd see a lot of rich scientists. And if you think the majority of scientists are bought out by corporations, again, that requires some type of evidence. Yes, I know scientists have been bought out before and it will probably happen again but those are rarities. We "give" him the ones where cigarettes are bad for you because they have been observed to be bad for you just like alcohol consumption and drug abuse/use.
I'm probably wasting my time with this reply, but I'm genuinely shocked you think we're being assholes for asking for evidence for something @daltono wrote out and claimed to be true without backing it up. Could some of us have been nicer in our responses? Most definitely. He knew he'd get attention from people when paying to have this on the trending page, I just ask for articles present in the actual post next time.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/dec/12/studies-health-nutrition-sugar-coca-cola-marion-nestle
Here's an example article of how studies are funded by the people who want a specific result.
Your response here is kind of hilarious:
It wasn't that you asked for evidence, it was the way you asked and the way you responded and the way everyone upvoted the other people who agreed with them while holding back votes from any of @daltono's responses, regardless of merit.
This is totally fine, I agree here that he should have dropped his sources so others could research them and find their own research to compare with. I've seen far worse on the trending page though.
One last thing on this point, if you think the corporations are paying the scientists a ton of money I think you're off, they just fund the studies which pays the rent for scientists. If no studies get funded, scientist don't get payed sort of deal. The people with money have typically gotten that money by taking advantage in ways that may be business smart, but seldom are looking out for the customer (cigarettes, cell phones, food industry, pharmaceutical industry(financially speaking at least,) etc.) I could dig into this some more, but I honestly don't want to dig up this info again, I did it for myself in the past, if you aren't worried about being misled then continue to be misled, I believe almost no one now
Yeah, I can't bring myself to upvote anything I do not agree with and my up vote is currently at 0.002 since I have most of my sp delegated as I have not been active how I want to be for the past month or so it would not matter anyway. I will not try to speak for the others though.
We all have and it seems like we always will.
Most of these corporations actually have scientists on their payroll now as the scientists work for them. They're expected to send their product or whatever out to independent researchers who are not supposed to validate the authenticity of their client's claims based on the funding. I agree that money talks, it's sad to see data be manipulated for financial gain as doing so puts people at risk. I've seen this firsthand as one of my professors is a lead shark researcher and a company tried to pay him quite a bit of money to test their products and "prove" they work. He politely declined the money and is testing them anyway as studies do show that magnets can be an effective shark deterrent.
I honestly love seeing opposing view points as debates or any intellectually engaging conversation is good in my opinion.
Thanks for the good response, honestly, and this is my personal opinion, I think everyone should look into what we're being sold, into any new technology that claims to be better at everything, or more cost effective and "entirely safe."
The greed in this world is astounding, and people will do nearly anything for money and power it seems. There is a reason everything seems to be in decline, from education, to health, to free time. It seems orchestrated to me and the 20 things that @daltono listed might just be the tip of the iceberg. If even half of them are true, there is major danger to our health and lives and ability to see things clearly.
I appreciate the clear headed response, always good to have a nice discussions where no one is belittling the other or being rude in some way. Cheers
I think it’s fine for you to respond however you so choose. That’s the beauty of this platform & life itself.
I’m sure you’ve probably heard of this before. I’ll leave here for those who haven’t.
Some scientists’ life philosophies just differ from mine drasticly. I understand that most of these guys are either dead or really old by now. But they could have been a mentor, or contributed info to a textbook that our current scientists were given in university. All I’m saying is that corruption has been around for a very long time. It’s hard to resist for some when money, power, and fame are on the line.
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-us-government-brought-nazi-scientists-america-after-world-war-ii-180961110/#yY5dwfuma8zhHfi4.99