Hacker News Reader

Comment by hhs | Hacker News Reader

> I'd say the first big thing to highlight is

A second big thing to highlight is the study disclosure at the bottom of this article. Four of the six authors "have previously received funding from the Beef Checkoff, through the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association."

View on HN

That is important to take note of. But also not disqualifying by itself. I would expect any researcher or scientist that has experience researching meat eating to be likely to get grants from meat related organizations.

It does pose questions about impartiality, especially for any form of statistical analysis. It just sadly is the reality of getting funding for certain studies.

I feel this is the first thing to look for in any study is who is funding it. Next buts are the qualitative aspects.

I am patiently waiting for a study brought to you by Carl’s Jr. any day now.

https://twitter.com/RickJWagner

Hey, Rick, do you have any studies by researchers funded by the National Right to Life Committee that show that women who haven't had abortions suffer less depression and anxiety?

And there you go.

Oof I didn't even read that far down, only skimmed over the abstract and introduction

Obligatory: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

That is absolutely fascinating (and horrifying!). Didn't know PR firms gave reporters that many stories.

> Whatever its flaws, the writing you find online is authentic. It's not mystery meat cooked up out of scraps of pitch letters and press releases, and pressed into molds of zippy journalese. It's people writing what they think.

Oops. About that. 2005 was a long time ago, eh?

The New York Times would say “experts say the exodus was fueled by QAnon conspiracy theories which have flourished as Facebook refuses to remove them.”

The Guardian is an extremely liberal paper, but they simply do not approach the level of disinformation that you see in American papers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com