|
|
|
|
|
by aragot
4293 days ago
|
|
For each quote, I wondered whether the journalist selected the worst part to make them look arrogant/ignorant. Later in the article there are more reasonable answers they could have used, saying there has been research (and funds?) allocated to this topic and they had found nothing, saying that there are several levels of peer review until a scientific study acquires the credit of trust, that further research and counter-studies are necessary before anything is confirmed, that based on the current knowledge there is nothing to worry about. The obsession of dodging the issue of the PR people quoted in the article raised red flags all around my mind. |
|