Good observations. The blatant spin is outrageous, but all too common when the researchers need to please their masters -- drug or device company. One would think that journal editors would demand unbiased language, but they are in on the act as well.
I approach articles with the highest level of skepticism, and usually conclude that…
Good observations. The blatant spin is outrageous, but all too common when the researchers need to please their masters -- drug or device company. One would think that journal editors would demand unbiased language, but they are in on the act as well.
I approach articles with the highest level of skepticism, and usually conclude that the researchers are beholden to their paymasters, and are thus untrustworthy. Other non-financial biases are also pervasive, for example when our public health officials want to promote a narrative and cite cherry-picked and trivial flawed observational studies as the basis of a recommendation such as public masking as an epidemic control. I believe that there is often a higher order bias as well: for instance most nutrition researchers push the "fat is bad" narrative, because "this just seems to make sense", and has been the main stream story for decades. PURE study results that confound the evils of dietary fat are then dismissed in much the manner that the cardiac researchers push for PTCA because of a "minimal increased risk" of a bad outcome.
John,
Good observations. The blatant spin is outrageous, but all too common when the researchers need to please their masters -- drug or device company. One would think that journal editors would demand unbiased language, but they are in on the act as well.
I approach articles with the highest level of skepticism, and usually conclude that the researchers are beholden to their paymasters, and are thus untrustworthy. Other non-financial biases are also pervasive, for example when our public health officials want to promote a narrative and cite cherry-picked and trivial flawed observational studies as the basis of a recommendation such as public masking as an epidemic control. I believe that there is often a higher order bias as well: for instance most nutrition researchers push the "fat is bad" narrative, because "this just seems to make sense", and has been the main stream story for decades. PURE study results that confound the evils of dietary fat are then dismissed in much the manner that the cardiac researchers push for PTCA because of a "minimal increased risk" of a bad outcome.