Hillarious. The study that says honey good got support from honey.com
If you believe honey has good properties, and you even go into the honey business because you believe in it so much, do you just need to wait around until an independent researcher gets the idea to study honey to find out about it?
How about this: can you point to any part of the study which is improper or wrong or looks like this bias may have affected it?
This argument reminds me of back in the day how republicans lambasted al gore for both caring about climate change, and being invested in solar panel companies. Maybe the reason he invested in the companies is exactly because he cares about the issue.
>How about this: can you point to any part of the study which is improper or wrong or looks like this bias may have affected it?
The comment that I commented on did exactly this; did you expect me to recite that part? I get your criticism if I directly commented on the article, but I merely commented on the additional detail already presented in a comment. (or are you suggesting that a requirement for finding something hilarious is a thoroughly analyzed rebuttal on top of an existing criticism?)
Also, again, I didn't make any argument, but a comment of a quote (observation) presented in the source material linked by parent comment.
so I'd suggest take a step back, read the two comments, ask yourself "what context am I willfully ignoring and putting word in to the commenters mouth"
Thanks for your opinion though, interesting fact about politics and al gore
If your assertion is that GPs criticism is about the confidence intervals and the prevalence of "low certainty" - that is the conclusion of the paper. The researchers can't really know the conclusions until they do the research. So would it be better if they didn't publish their paper since the results weren't a glowing endorsement of honey? Isn't it a good thing they published results and called out the fact that they are low certainty?
And if the criticism was the conflict of interest, that is what I responded to.
Great comment.
yes, through the public research funds allocated from taxes
What is so hilarious about this? A site that advocates for a product supports anyone who can prove them right, that is just common sense. Would it be equally hilarious if the White House supported a study to show democracy was great? "Oh look, a "democracy" state funded this study, so surely it's all bogus!" Please, think for yourselves, don't just imitate.
And this also brings out another interesting point about the world we live in today. We have so many resources at our fingertips. I don't consider myself an average consumer, but there is not a day, where I don't find something new about the world and how it operates. It is genuinely hard and time-consuming to dig into details for every single little thing. You have to be able to defer to some level of authority ( and verification of data ), because you will not be able to complete any other relevant work.
This underscores it that point. Most people will start buying more honey. People on HN will tear the paper apart.
Everyone else has free agency too. Read the fine print rather than assume it’s Sesame Street out there. Adults should know the drill by now. “Grin and bear” it or get more involved spreading what you think is a better message in a more constructive way than ranting in barely noticed HN comment section.
Personally, I am going to be an adult and accept the world does not owe me coddling my sensibilities and lean heavily into DIY living. On the upside is society collapses or globalism contracts greatly, I have shit tons of hours behind me building wide and deep set of skills. And if it doesn’t well, I wasn’t sitting on social media.
Ethical approval was not required for this research."