[CodeWriter23]

Only problem with relying on "truth", at least when it comes to Science, studies often can't be reliably reproduced, former editors of prestigious medical journals say half of what they publish is pure rubbish, the NEJM gave up trying to hire independent reviewers of their papers in 1991 because they couldn't find any scientists who weren't tainted by pharma funding. I'm all for rigorous science, it's just that we have too many practitioners these days motivated by money rather than the pursuit of unbiased truth, and in their process, pervert science into nothing more than public relations.

You need look no further than the largest study of bee populations published this week in Nature to see what I'm talking about. It concludes Roundup is killing the bees, and Bayer comes out and calls the study "inconclusive" because it defies the tobacco science they previously bought and paid for.

And I just know someone is going to post a link from Snopes, confirming Bayer's version of the truth, without investigating any of the underlying science, but will accept Snopes' version of the truth as the actual truth. Because Snopes. Let's not even acknowledge nobody at Snopes has any journalistic nor investigative credentials.

[babyrainbow]

Very interested to see some sources for these things you mention in first para. Do you have them handy?