Stephen E. Arnold
Above headline by Phi Beta Iota editors. Below is original headline.
Harvard: Does the University Sell What the Customer Wants?
Consider fat and sugar. The answer is my reaction to “Sugar Industry Secretly Paid for Favorable Harvard Research.” For the moment, let’s assume that this article is spot on.
The write up informed me:
As nutrition debates raged in the 1960s, prominent Harvard nutritionists published two reviews in a top medical journal downplaying the role of sugar in coronary heart disease. Newly unearthed documents reveal what they didn’t say: A sugar industry trade group initiated and paid for the studies, examined drafts, and laid out a clear objective to protect sugar’s reputation in the public eye.
Read full post.
Further to the Phi Beta Iota comments on the mistaken limitation of OSINT to passive monitoring of web sites and such….
Prevalent approaches to countering ‘radicalisation’ ineffective, conceptually flawed
“A lack of research based on primary sources has been one of the major impediments to progress in the field of (counter-) terrorism studies… As numerous leading experts have warned, the consequences of an overreliance on secondary sources of information, such as newspapers, has led to a great amount of theorising based on a perilously small empirical foundation.”
More extracts, 2 cartoons, comment by Robert Steele below.
Read the rest of this entry »
Manufacturing consent in science: the diabolical twist
Predatory corporations who spray poisonous pesticides all over the world and cause birth defects need special protection and cover? Invent, overnight, and broadcast, a consensus that a basically harmless virus is the cause of those tragic defects. I can assure you there are many scientists who don’t, for a second, believe the Zika virus is the agent of destruction. But they are keeping their mouths shut now and rolling with the tide.