I happened to catch it before the author (old, old buddy of mine, who I recently saw on another friend's lj) deleted it.
Summary paraphrase:
"1. I've met Flemco. He is, in my opinion, retarded.
2. The study lacks peer review, so I'm questioning its scientific rigor.
3. I believe it likely that there will be vitriolic responses re: Item 2, which is unfortunate, so I'm probably going to delete this."
All in all, I was surprised when it vanished during the composition of my reply. Since I don't have comments emailed to me, the original is lost to the aether, but it was, in the main, fairly mild, though taking a position essentially contrary to yours.
I was speaking of my own experience. Due to a continuing gag order I'm not at liberty to give details online. But I will say that it continues to piss me off that none of us who are involved in [said incident] are allowed to correct the huge, glaring inaccuracies spread by the press. I'm also pissed off that the press is allowed to continue to print said inaccuracies without facing any kind of retribution or responsibility for their actions. It also pisses me off when people (sometimes people on my own friends list) use links to the articles in question to "prove" the validity of claims that counteract the truth.
I've found out the hard way that a reporter can say anything an editor will let them say without any legal recourse. A slander conviction is difficult because the plaintiff has to prove the defendant intended financial harm specifically on the plaintiff. A reporter/"activist" on a crusade against [insert item here] is protected from the law by the "it's nothing person" defense, especially when this reporter does the same thing to other people in the name of being against [insert item here]. Very often scientists studying hot button issues get screwed by this and it's propagated by an ignorant public who wants to believe the "scandal" and say "gotcha" to scientists whom they distrust. The truth is often far less sensational and therefore ignored by the public. No one ever reads the retraction unless the retraction itself is a scandal.
Speaking of which. I've been wondering. During the "Blizzard of 2009" a whole bunch of people said "this is proof that Global Warming doesn't exist!" Now it's over 100 F in those same cities. Yet we're not hearing from those people at all. Curious, isn't it?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ninetydegrees![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Summary paraphrase:
"1. I've met Flemco. He is, in my opinion, retarded.
2. The study lacks peer review, so I'm questioning its scientific rigor.
3. I believe it likely that there will be vitriolic responses re: Item 2, which is unfortunate, so I'm probably going to delete this."
All in all, I was surprised when it vanished during the composition of my reply. Since I don't have comments emailed to me, the original is lost to the aether, but it was, in the main, fairly mild, though taking a position essentially contrary to yours.
(no subject)
I've found out the hard way that a reporter can say anything an editor will let them say without any legal recourse. A slander conviction is difficult because the plaintiff has to prove the defendant intended financial harm specifically on the plaintiff. A reporter/"activist" on a crusade against [insert item here] is protected from the law by the "it's nothing person" defense, especially when this reporter does the same thing to other people in the name of being against [insert item here]. Very often scientists studying hot button issues get screwed by this and it's propagated by an ignorant public who wants to believe the "scandal" and say "gotcha" to scientists whom they distrust. The truth is often far less sensational and therefore ignored by the public. No one ever reads the retraction unless the retraction itself is a scandal.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)