- #1
- 4,779
- 3,841
This thread is about cancer risk and organic food consumption - reporting on it mostly.
USA today: (drive by journalism?)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...vent-cancer-french-study-suggests/1737791002/
Commentary from JAMA (a critique)
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2707943
Original article (linked by JAMA)
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...t=personalizedcontent&previousarticle=2707943
And we have this from a science watchdog group (This is not well written, IMO)
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/10/2...ncer-risk-thats-biologically-impossible-13538
This is why Nutrition Research has problems:
1. USA Today says basically 'Organic foods reduce cancer risk'.
2. The original article has a more limited view.
3. The JAMA commentary critiques the original research.
4. ACSH take on the article is extremely critical of the original French paper
My initial response: this is why "fake news" works, at least according to Yuval Noah Harari
What internet companies sell is reader attention to advertisers. Not correct content to the viewership. See-
"21 lessons for the 21st century" 2018 Yuval Noah Harari
This is also a clear example of why PF has a list of online journals that we accept. And why we delete or lock some threads.
If you are going to comment on this: Please do!
Please Do A Good Job. Do not do what you see above - . In this case, that means at least please try to read the abstracts. If you cannot understand something, please ask.
My current take is that organic food is generally more expensive in the US than non-organic foodstuffs. I cannot sensibly say a lot more at this point.
USA today: (drive by journalism?)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...vent-cancer-french-study-suggests/1737791002/
Commentary from JAMA (a critique)
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2707943
Original article (linked by JAMA)
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...t=personalizedcontent&previousarticle=2707943
And we have this from a science watchdog group (This is not well written, IMO)
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/10/2...ncer-risk-thats-biologically-impossible-13538
This is why Nutrition Research has problems:
1. USA Today says basically 'Organic foods reduce cancer risk'.
2. The original article has a more limited view.
3. The JAMA commentary critiques the original research.
4. ACSH take on the article is extremely critical of the original French paper
My initial response: this is why "fake news" works, at least according to Yuval Noah Harari
What internet companies sell is reader attention to advertisers. Not correct content to the viewership. See-
"21 lessons for the 21st century" 2018 Yuval Noah Harari
This is also a clear example of why PF has a list of online journals that we accept. And why we delete or lock some threads.
If you are going to comment on this: Please do!
Please Do A Good Job. Do not do what you see above - . In this case, that means at least please try to read the abstracts. If you cannot understand something, please ask.
My current take is that organic food is generally more expensive in the US than non-organic foodstuffs. I cannot sensibly say a lot more at this point.