A vaccinator who bases her opinion on press releases and doesn't have a single smoking gun?
Thanks the scientist, goodbye and thanks for all the fish.
All the cardiness has turned into stupidity.
I will not come back here.
Dr. Yaffe Shir-Raz's article is interesting, amazing. Worth consideration and attention. Mainly of the doctors and medical teams affected by it.
Hidden advertising is doubly harmful due to the anesthetization of the immune mechanisms of readers in general and readers in Kortaim in particular. The newspaper Haaretz and its sponsor De Marker use this scam in particular, but other newspapers do not play hand in hand either.
The man known as "doesn't understand" (forgive me, I'll use unscientific language: the nickname you gave yourself - moron. What's wrong with a simple human nickname that's easy to incorporate into a response text?)
There is a theory of the ball warming and there are those who deny it.
I understood from your words that (the vast majority) do not deny the warming, but claim that it is accidental as it has always happened. And I'm sure it did happen.
The mere claim that an event happens sometimes does nothing to explain it. Solar eclipses happen sometimes. lunar eclipse. rain. clouds. Summer heat and winter cold. Day and night cycles. length of day and night. the sight of the moon Life, birth, death.
Does the mere fact that they happen in cycles absolve us of an explanation? No! The explanation is required whether the phenomenon is cyclical or one-time. And so we understand that the day lengthens during the summer up to a certain maximum and then recedes again. And this is how we understand the course of the moon, its form that diminishes to zero and back to the full moon. And due to our precise understanding we are able to explain, date, quantify, predict.
And here, there is no doubt, at least apparently, that something is wrong with the Earth. He is warming up. The sea level is rising. There are entire islands that disappear into the sea. The main body of science claims: "It is man-made. Greenhouse Effect". There is no problem proving that there is a greenhouse effect. There is a problem to quantify.
But it is not so clear to me what the deceivers claim. I assume the detractors support one or more of the following claims:
No warming (biased tests. politics. lies)
There is warming. But it is not a greenhouse effect. It's just something unclear.
There is warming and this is its reason: a, b, c.
The deceivers cannot pull their strings and say "the onus of proof is on you". When there is such a central theory that the majority of the scientific world is in favor of - they have to respond. They must respond. Because the fate of the earth may be decided because of this.
In your response I do not see intelligent claims, messages, proofs. There is "eat me drink me". So I tried not to call you a denier but a "deceived" (which is fine). And it contains nothing but the claim of a typical idolater: "Everything is from God." Everything is cyclical." Sorry. You don't go to the grocery store with it.
Explain to us, please (or refer to the article) why the greenhouse effect is irrelevant? Alternatively, present us with an orderly theory that explains why there is warming now, when it will stop, what are the causes of it, what is the maximum warming.
Do not understand
The most correct thing in your response is that you don't understand.
The atmosphere is warming, even though we should be in the process of cooling right now.
We know how much GHG man emits, and we know that GHG is a greenhouse gas.
If you think man has no effect on the climate then you are delusional. The damage to the ozone is a fact. The warming is a fact.
I'll tell you one more little thing. In the Grand Canyon area today there is a haze that was not there before. Checked and found that this haze comes from China. Do you still want to claim that a person has no influence?
Don't understand, continue to live in the imaginary world of the Koch brothers. Please move the discussion to the article dealing with global warming, although even there it will be fruitless, because there is no common denominator between them that can be reached.
"If all scientists agree that.."
A. Not all scientists agree that ... please check the studies I sent
B. Even if all the scientists and religious priests agree that man is to blame and responsible for the weather - there are facts and it is better to evaluate facts instead of looking for "authority" between Ann is a "rabbi", a pagan doctor, a religious priest or even a "scientist" -
Some facts that I have already presented, but it seems that you didn't bother to check (and I think they will hit you like a ton of bricks, you won't recognize them).
The world has warmed and cooled since the dawn of history - examples are Modrom Minma, Optimum Maxima, the Ice Age, etc. - we have no influence on weather cycles. What's more, the sun's actions have been taken out of the equation and it determines whether we are heading towards warming or a kind of ice age.
third. All I can do is present facts - but what evidence can you bring to a person who does not value evidence?
The earth has been warming and cooling since time immemorial - we have nothing to do with it - even if we really want to.
Carbon dioxide, methane and other species were here even before there was oxygen in the atmosphere...as soon as there is an excess of gases. The population of methanotrophs (a species of bacteria that feeds on its cells and converts it to organic holes and finally to sugar)
The same goes for carbon dioxide - we noted that bacteria turned it into oxygen, green and red elite (trees, seaweed, etc.) - in fact we noted that it was bacteria that created oxygen as the composition of the atmosphere was mostly methane and carbon dioxide
Personally, I don't understand the need to control the world, and the "the sky is falling on us" approach
The world turned before you were born and will probably continue after
If the entire atmosphere is carbon dioxide - populations of anaerobic bacteria that feed on toxic gases such as sulfides, ammonia, methane, and carbon dioxide will turn the equation back to clean oxygen (La Stelier's Law)
my father
The argument of does not make sense. Replace the word "God" with "evolution", then you will understand how ridiculous your claimant is.
Unless you were trying to say something else….
Self-reflection?
A serious bunch of bloated nads have gathered here that there is a situation where the level of air pollution on Earth exceeds the standard.
Your argument is flawed, if all climate scientists prove that there is warming and that it is man-made, a counter argument is denial.
my father
You won't find articles denying global warming
Just like you won't find scientific articles that deny God's inventions
There is no need to deny what does not exist
There is a paradox in the body of the request to present a scientific article that "denies" something that does not exist (and you can only deny something that exists)
This is a nonsensical circular argument
So
The best thing about these articles is that you get peak activity on the site - and that's why I remove my participation in the discussion so as not to support additional articles as if they only detract from the value of the site in my opinion
Research by Valentina Zharkova, published in the Royal Astronomical Society - it is claimed that the sun is going to reduce electromagnetic activity by sixty percent and we are entering a "mini ice age" from the year 1645 to the year 1750. It may have already started. It happened in the past about three hundred years ago (search on Wikipedia) Maunder Minimum (XNUMX-XNUMX) - a kind of ice age that caused crop destruction and changing seasons - search it's not "controversial" - the phenomenon is described extensively in fiction and art from that period... so you don't have to A scientist or religious priest can determine that the world is warming or cooling - and it is not because of our intervention.
Al Gore is not a scientist - and global warming has been politicized and polarized - so any published research is a limited liability.
The new strategy is a terminological change from warming to "weather change", semantic games and its verbal loopholes and science has nothing - the theory of global warming has been expanded to everything that no longer has any meaning (like the word love) - so that any change (cold, heat) in the weather will fit to theory.
There is no scientific debate about climate change.
There has always been a change in the weather, even before we were here - the Ice Age, the book of names, years of famine, drought, flood, etc.
There was also global warming (check on Wikipedia) in the Middle Ages (search in English "Mid Evil Optimum") a time when it was so hot that the North Pole bloomed - and Northern Greenland was green (hence the name Green Land) ... there is more but enough to shatter many of the myths - the changes Even then, the goddess treated the soft actions of man, who corrupts, pollutes and despises the land - and whoever does not repent is the enemy of humanity - then it was religious priests - today it is radical scientists and politicians.
Don't feel the need to deny. The burden of proof is on the claimant not the denier - the denier has to challenge the theory with one inconsistency in order for it to fall. I'm not a "warming denier" either. The medieval optimum was a warm period in which Norway was as hot as the south of France - what can be challenged is the claim (which is debunked in my view) that it is the fault of man who corrupts and pollutes the land and leaves nature (the bright sun) and "Mother Earth" angry - And they punish us with brutal weather
In every XNUMXst year chemistry book at the university it is claimed that in the XNUMXth century the earth warmed by one degree?
How did they come to this conclusion? What is the standard deviation at such a level of accuracy? Probably zero (because real temperature is measured in Kelvin and if so the temperature any beginning statistician would say is that the temperature is one up or down for a hundred years
(301 or 300 Kelvin) is remarkably stable.
In fact, in the formulas in thermodynamics, you will refer to it as a constant temperature (isothermal system)...
In any case, it seems to me that I brought enough data that the site will never see - because this data does not support the theory of global warming.
One last note
I have no problem with the presentation of global warming on the site. Only for the political nature of the theory is always presented here. And how the arguments of the skeptics in the articles when they are already presented is to make them laugh. You call people like me "worshippers of the tycoons" and on the other hand Al Gore (a man who received a Naban peace award for a pile of lies) and the "scientists" he leans on are presented as objective.
The one who "worships the tycoons" (and the government is an arch-tycoon) is the one who justifies the billions they take from him for the weather, the car, the farts (metheine) and the carbon dioxide in his Diet Coke...
I don't have any more time, I hope we learned something today
Do not understand
You really don't understand what consensus is. Do you have a single article by a global warming denier published in a professional journal?
Beyond that, warming is a fact that has evidence from dozens of different and independent directions. Please read the website http://www.skepticalscience.com They bring references to their every claim, the deniers don't really do that and just say eat me drink me the human cycle is small compared to the earth and all kinds of other unquantifiable claims.
The name change is due to political pressure. Climate change is only in one direction - up.
There is no other side, just like there is no other side to evolution or a side that claims the earth is the center of the universe. Let them feel comfortable on pseudo-scientific websites, with me you will only get the consensus, if God forbid it deviates from the consensus, it will be a betrayal of the readers.
You managed to drive the system crazy... I also lost a response now
No problem giving access, just tell me how to do it. Not giving access is probably Facebook's default.
Well, I'm a bit fed up - the whole intention was not to argue but to convey my feeling as a reader.
I certainly have no intention of justifying myself, on all kinds of refutable arguments, to anyone, (Ethan, this refers to you).
Abby, do you want my review? You're welcome. You don't want to, you are also invited, but know that on the side of this decision there are other people who do not react actively but feel the same as me.
It's rare to come across such a large number of responses other than arguments with evolution or climate denier trolls.
I have a feeling that all these responses do not come from a place of scientific integrity or fairness in the selection of my father's articles.
This is not the first article on the website that was published and summarizes a doctoral thesis.
Did any of the commenters find an error or bias in the data and conclusions of the dissertation?
Your censorship, my father, is out of place. If you have a problem with your sister, don't solve it by censoring. It would have been better if you had not uploaded this pseudo-nothing to the site. Especially not as a PR announcement. This has nothing to do with science.
There is no problem in proving someone for his actions. I did not attack her as a person, but I have a criticism of what she writes.
I cannot comment on Facebook because we are not friends and you do not give access to anyone who is not your friend. You try to enjoy all the worlds. It's childish and petty.
"The claim you make is a conspiracy theory"
No because not only do you not deny the claims (about global warming) you even justify them. What is claimed is not an anti-ether conspiracy theory but rather the identification of a periodic pattern- (I do this every day in the lab. Does that mean chemical reactions are a conspiracy theory?)
I have no desire to bash you - I just wanted to perhaps shed some light that it might be better for the website to remain purely scientific without political motivation.
As a science lecturer even if I agree with the global warming theories - I go out of my way to make students from the other side of the fence feel comfortable in my classes... It would be nice if you would consider the same strategy.
The theories of global warming as man-made are not agreed upon by the entire scientific community (as part of the scientific community I personally know the people who work - the silent majority does not support the theory, the minority who support it are usually people with a very high political motivation) there is no point in explanations, but I will send you to look into the matter - one evidence of this is that in recent years the terminology has suddenly changed from global warming to "climate change". I remember they said that by XNUMX there will be about forty million climate refugees in this world. The "study" was published on the UN website. Al Gore claimed (and it's on YouTube) at every possible conference that by September two thousand and fifteen all the northern arctic glaciers will melt completely...
There is no scientific debate about climate change... there has always been climate change (the Ice Age, the beginning of the Bronze Age, there were thirty degrees in Scandinavia, etc.)
The world cools and warms in cycles.
The debate is whether man is responsible for the change / warming
Additional problems in global warming
One problem I mentioned is that there is no scientific debate on the other side (show me an article with my counterarguments that doesn't present them just to make fun of them on your site).
Using emotional blackmail that "the sky is falling" urges that "there is no time", to borrow a language like holocaust deniers and apply it to anyone who does not agree with the dogmatism of the theory ("warming deniers") and makes it difficult to trust it, creating feelings of guilt for the heavy damage of Those who do not enthusiastically support the theory cause the world, and other classic tricks that every religious demagogue uses.
You have a site with fantastic potential - if you maintain a high scientific standard
Well, caught on the minor point of Pharma or Big Pharma, you can give it up with a quiet heart.
Regarding the conclusion that medicines do not help - this is implied from the title and the article (Snoring Diseases) and the lack of reference to the data of 'what does it mean' to actually deliver messages to the press. What did they learn from this? That Dr. Itai Gal publishes some nonsense or two on YNET..? Happy old age.
Sorry for the excess of comments - problems with uploading the site for me.
Where did my last comment go?
I will repeat my words with renewed reference -
My questions, and my points, stand on their own, and are not related to any body.
The entire website infrastructure allows anonymous responses, as long as you allow it - you must also answer them, otherwise what's the point? I personally don't get a dime from any party in this story, I only raise questions that arise in my mind - accusations of this kind, do not add any more professionalism to the answer of any of us.
Skeptic, I've heard the phrase pharma companies at legitimate medical conferences, even Big Pharma. How did you come to the conclusion that the drugs do not help? As for exaggerations - I am at least of the opinion that the truth is also strong enough that it does not need to be "upgraded". Dr. Avinoam Raks, former chairman of the Ethics Committee of the Medical Association, also used this phrase and even quoted its English source in an article on Channel 1.
The answer is in the body of the question - you set up a system that allows this, and as such, you are exposed to anonymous questions. there's nothing to do. If you want to charge a full name, that's your right, but you'll be breaking the normal messaging system.
By the way, the questions here are not related to any company, in any way. If it helps, I'm a computer guy, not getting funded by anyone, but just expressing my opinion on this topic.
It is transparent - I do not work for a pharmaceutical company, nor a doctor, nor a publicist, nor a lobbyist nor a journalist.
Capish?
I only skimmed it so I won't go into depth, yet.
It is clear where the "disease sniffers" came from - the opening paragraph of the work opens with this phrase (without any reference!!!). From here on there is arrow throwing (page 90) and from here on the drawing of the target begins. It is self-evident what the conclusion of the study will be just by reading the title. If the gun appears in the first act, it fires in the third act.
At least in the section that raises the methodological problems, everything is true, but missing. The main problem is the exchange between cause and effector. As the saying goes, "Turn it around, turn it around."
After reading (and even skimming), it reinforces my initial feeling that this coverage has no place on a serious science site. There is no science here, but politics and economics.
Skeptic, how exactly am I supposed to treat anonymous comments? After all, anyone can write what they want, even those with interests. On Facebook at least they know who the person is and can identify if they have interests. It is permissible to be skeptical of any news, in this specific case, I encountered a problem, and there is even an office that because I caught them in the attempts to deceive, I do not open their emails and they also represent patient associations.
Hi Abby,
After reading the article and the comments, I would like to add my two divorcees to the matter...
beginning,
I don't think it's a reasonable request to respond to you in a Facebook thread for several reasons:
* We are not Facebook members.
* Sometimes we prefer to express ourselves anonymously - without the accompanying consequences.
Second,
Although I agree with you that if bias exists, it should and should be presented, especially in a community whose role is to research the same substance/medicine. But I do not agree with the nature of the presentation of the "article" above, again, for several reasons (which I will try to summarize to the most important points in my opinion):
* The fact that an article was published in a newspaper, does not prevent you as another publishing body - from criticizing it, and deciding whether it meets the 'standard', especially when there is a conflict of interests. There are more than enough articles in the press that the connection between them and 'real' scientific information does not exist, and if 'Hidan' becomes a conduit for their promotion, it will be a shame.
* If we are talking about throwing the baby out with the bath water, this is how the article portrays the matter. Admittedly, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about the entire industry, but it gives the impression that everyone, impeccably, works like the organized mafia, and my spider senses tickle and say that there may be a very blatant exaggeration here, and a tremendous lack of division into cases. Is it for a specific company or in general? Is it in certain medications? What do the interviews with the 49 professionals have to do with the matter? How many messages do exaggerate the product's activity? Do they draw it 10% or 200% better?
* The blunt expression of "snoring diseases" is jarring to the depths of my soul, as if all the medicines were only meant to enrich one's pocket, and none of them solves the problems for which they were created. If indeed this is what you want to claim, the body of evidence should be huge, massive and crazy to the point that it will earn the site a crazy "tarpik" from all the bodies that have interests. Otherwise, it borders on defamation - and demagoguery in the shekel of 'appeal to emotion', and the location of such arguments, not on such a site.
* As well as - between complaining about an illness and promoting the products in the press there is a huge chasm. There is no logical conclusion between the two. Even if we accept the fact as arbitrary, and the pharmaceutical companies do advertise products illegally, **** it still doesn't mean that drugs don't help, aren't good, aren't helpful, don't treat or that there is a 'snort of diseases' ****, I don't know How much can I emphasize this problem beyond the stars.
* Not that I think for a moment that the pharmaceutical companies do not have financial interests in carrying out certain moves, which do not always contribute to the public - there is not enough data here to justify this call. And the use of "Pharma", which may be a bit silly to complain about, but it immediately plays into the hands of anti-vaccines and anti-science in general, the use of "Big Pharma".
* As a non-regular reader, who comes in here and there, it hurts me personally to see a Tamka headline with a Takma article (or Haaretz, NRG or any other newspaper), where the headline is pointlessly grandiose, and the body of the article does not support the headline or the conclusion. It's quite disappointing to go to a place that you can trust often, and see that it is run as a superficial article for promotion.
To be fair -
I do not come to accuse you, nor your sister, of intentional misrepresentation or slander or anything else that may be inferred from the above, on the contrary -
I just come to point out points that I find very problematic so that you can improve both in this article and in the future, and present content that, at least in my opinion, will be better.
Thank you,
skeptic.
I would appreciate it if you would move the discussion to a post about the article on my Facebook wall
If you criticize me, criticize something right,
1. Global warming is not a shaky theory but the scientific consensus and one of the strengths of the site is the adherence to the scientific consensus.
2. Religion - somewhere it is written that I only criticize the injustices that are done only in the name of the Jewish religion
Here you go Islam https://www.hayadan.org.il/isis-effect-1201158 https://www.hayadan.org.il/when-religion-freedom-crash-with-freeodm-of-speach-1001153
Christianity https://www.hayadan.org.il/bill-nye-won-the-debate-0502143
The claims against GMOs are political masquerading as science: http://www.wsci.org.il/#!sir-richard-j-roberts/c1bl3
What is the connection between legitimate criticism of the gas and pharmaceutical companies and anti-Semitism? In general, the feeling is that despite the social protest, beneath the surface the blind worship of tycoons continues and they can do whatever they want and take over the world economy without criticism because any criticism is illegitimate to the point of anti-Semitism - the claim you make is itself a conspiracy theory.
The research deals with the analysis of press releases, some of which also reached me as a journalist, and you should say thank you that I did not publish them after I understood the true purpose of the oil for its intended purpose, and in some cases also to avoid a lawsuit (there was once a press release in which an organization of patients compared two treatments and came to the conclusion that a certain treatment is That's right, and I had a suspicion that the publicists work with the same pharmaceutical company that 'incidentally' is claimed to be better). I take such messages with a grain of salt, and therefore, among other things, you will hardly see news about large pharmaceutical companies, but about startups in the field of biotechnology and medical devices.
My father unfortunately I agree if one man. You have to decide if this is a news political or scientific site. I'm glad it enlightens your attention, I left the site intermittently several times due to articles with a political color. At other times, if I see your name, I don't open the article - not as a boycott, but because I feel that the articles are biased, and many of us readers read science websites to escape politically charged articles.
Here are some examples
1. Global warming (to this day, the side that doubts the shaky theory has never been presented, and I don't know if the study that we are marching towards a kind of ice age has been presented)
2. Childbirth restriction (in an article that addresses the Western man with sharp criticism - even though he behaves in the most responsible manner on the subject)
Articles against the ultra-Orthodox ignorance (and also an ultra-orthodox birth) compared to zero criticism of the Islamic ignorance which is the real danger these days to Western civilization (I am not presenting a political position but a statistical description based on the total majority of head coverings at this given moment in the world)
And how not? Conspiracy theories - articles against the gas and pharmaceutical companies - everyone knows the theories, and those who live abroad know that those who believe in these theories almost without exception also hold opinions against the banks (or bankers - a new and sophisticated term for Jews), Wall Street (Jews) and America (ruled by Jews)
The criticism, my father, is unfortunately justified, don't forget that ninety-seven percent of customers on average don't complain (like me), the remaining three percent are usually the most loyal customers (I like to go to the website, or "it's convenient for me because this store is close to my home/work," I want to keep coming back here, but the fruits are not fresh/the selection of products is limited" etc.); You should listen... the site will only benefit from it.
Arguments against GMOs are not a political debate but a scientific one - a huge difference.
Medicines that do not encourage resistance to antibiotics is the subject of extensive research at the moment all over the world - the strategy is to disrupt communication between bacteria (for example creating microfilms)
The woman (Dr. Raz) has never seen the inside of a laboratory and has no idea how long a drug (mother) travels until it reaches the shelf.
to the body of an article
There is a mix-up between prescription drugs (such as vaccines, drugs for cancer patients, etc.) for which advertising is strictly prohibited. and over-the-counter "medicines" - most of which are low-risk (pills, Norofen, etc.) or nutritional supplements (which are not medicine at all),
I don't see a problem there - you can't demand that they advertise in a different way than cosmetics companies or shampoo "with a special formula" that prevents shedding, or chewing gum that "whitens the teeth".
Of course, excessive use of Nurofen can be harmful, but so can cola (two, obesity, diabetes, cancer (from benzoic acid), phosphoric acid, etc.)
The responsibility is also on the discretion of the consumer
Wishing you a good week
One person, just as I don't like being judged by a person's body and not by the substance of the matter, I don't like it being done to others. The question at the moment is whether the problem is correct and exists. You see any criticism of the pharmaceutical companies as forbidden, but you will be surprised. This week I was at a lecture by the Nobel laureate, Prof. Sidney Altman, and he was very angry at the pharmaceutical companies that do not invest in the development of antibiotics that bacteria will have difficulty developing resistance to (and I plan to upload the Zet article and a summary of Vachatan's lecture Another Nobel Prize from the conference in Jerusalem last week that talked about the opposition to GM as no less than a crime against humanity will soon be on the site.)
So there are legitimate claims against the drug companies and this is one of them. This is how the research should be judged.
If it is urgent for you until I find out where the study can be read, you are welcome to contact the Department of Communication.
post Scriptum. I'm sure that the boycott stems from my integrity, because if I had behaved in unethical ways (and I won't go into details) I would have received budgets a long time ago.
Father, I will explain one more time:
1. The use of the expressions "disease spreaders" is very inappropriate. Meanwhile, those who are responsible for the fact that life expectancy has increased are not communication doctors but those pharmaceutical companies that develop drugs and vaccines.
2. The presentation of the research results probably indicates the research. For example: "Doctors use narratives and myths in the description of diseases and drugs, glorify the benefits of drugs and ignore risks and side effects." We are talking about the same article that published intimidation articles such as this one: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3339824,00.html which deals with the alleged dangerousness of the flu vaccine based on a single case that was allegedly caused by a vaccine. An irresponsible article in my opinion that ignores about 3000 deaths from the flu and related lung diseases.
We are talking about a reporter whose articles are frequently cited by vaccine opponents. The same vaccines that are one of the greatest achievements of science since time immemorial.
3. There is no place to tell about a doctoral thesis in the department of communication, even if it deals with a topic that is supposedly related to science. The work has no scientific value. Perhaps it has value for those who deal with the media and especially for those who receive press releases and pass them on as they are without minimal checking.
4. Especially when the work itself has not yet been attached so that it and its methods can be tested.
This conduct surrounding this press release greatly devalues the knowledge site. As of this moment, we, the readers, have no idea how many PR announcements like this have passed as they are, especially when this one has no place on the website. This is a serious damage to the site's reputation in my opinion.
After all, you cry all the time that you don't get paid and you don't have budgets and all. How do you want to be taken seriously if you contribute to that entire community of pseudoscience advocates?
And another question is over.
According to the university's website this month this doctorate celebrates a year.
Why is this message being published now?
"Turn baldness into a disease"?
Please show me the medical literature on the subject.
Last time I checked baldness has been bothering people since the time of the Bible and no one invented anything new here, but maybe Teva and Fraser started the campaign 6000 years ago, here is something else the doctor can write about.
One man, what is blatant in what I wrote? I wrote that the facts should be referred to in every journalistic article, and if (according to the table in the Haretz article) the scientific data differ from those presented by the pharmaceutical companies, they should be published and not manipulated. In my opinion, every deadly disease needs treatment, and it doesn't matter how many will actually get it, even one in a thousand means 8,000 people in Israel alone. Each person is a whole world, so for me, even if the numbers are less beautiful than those of the pharmaceutical companies and even if there are several competing drugs and not just the one presented by them, the public should know that.
Isn't it a bit hypocritical that a woman who makes a living from scaremongering against life-saving medical treatments writes against scaremongering?
Doctoral theses should be free, so that other researchers can refer to them. I will check with her and the university where the article can be read, in an online version.
I did not understand the criticism, given the circumstances, knowingly Specific It would have been better to leave the original wording. Surely this is a science news site. It is a fact that I report not only on the studies in Israel but all over the world. I am also preparing a project following the visit of many Nobel laureates to an event in Jerusalem.
Wow, what a stupid argument - if everyone posted it must be fine. Remind you that Haaretz newspaper also lost defamation lawsuits against him? Legal advice is not equivalent to protection against lawsuits or the ability to successfully defend against them.
Second, using such blunt language is not exactly appropriate for a website that claims to be scientific.
Third, there is no reference to anything that can be taken seriously. Again, this probably doesn't add seriousness to this site.
Decide if you are a science news site or a news site that provides a platform for PR messages. Does this doctoral thesis have any scientific meaning and value? According to me no. But it's hard to stand up to the family, apparently.
As for quoting a press release, I explained that it would have been better to do it that way precisely for the ethical reasons.
Snoring diseases is quite a broad term, ranging from ignoring inconvenient data, omitting details that change the picture (and believe me, it is enough that one in fifty women may get breast cancer, or one in a thousand girls who are infected with the papillomavirus will also get cervical cancer to fight these diseases.) to to absolute lies.
And again, if they had issued notices on behalf of the company itself (as the University of Haifa did) and not on behalf of any association, and published the results of studies proving their claim, they could have been taken seriously. Besides, if this phrase was quoted in so many places - including the Haaretz newspaper, there is no fear of a lawsuit, nor would the University of Haifa issue a legally problematic announcement.
If I were a pharmaceutical company, I would sue the form for Blizovsky. "Snoring diseases"? Then you wonder if they don't take you seriously. Copy paste of public relations announcements. Wait, isn't that exactly the subject of this PhD?
How can this matter be taken seriously, should one even read the original work? Is it transparency? Is this science?
And one more thing, the universities do not behave in a way that violates the rules of ethics. I have a lot of criticism for the speakers and I tell them openly, but not in this area. I have no problem with press releases as long as the things written in them are true, and the only motive is the visible motive - to promote the name of the university/company/institution as a place where good research is done, and not some kind of agenda to use the media to manipulate this or that decision maker (Health basket). If the pharmaceutical company wanted to be proud of the research it is doing, they should have issued a statement on their behalf and be proud of the product, and not hide behind patient organizations.
Precisely because of this it is better that I am not the one to write the article unlike other media outlets, for example Ido Efrati in Haretz. http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/health/1.2708414
And regardless, I have a stomach full of publicists who do tricks, to sell medicine even if it is the most important in the world. I am always in favor of telling the truth and transparency, and I also receive these messages. There is a certain office that makes it a practice to represent patient organizations and doctors who talk about a certain drug as if it is the only solution and it turns out that this is not the case and strange, because these associations should have been in favor of competition. The ministry also did not use to mention (nowadays less so) the name of the company that produces that wonder drug, although there is no problem finding it easily on Google. Now I don't post anything that comes from that office, even if it's legitimate news because they can't be trusted.
Such practices in many cases cause the baby to be thrown out with the bath water, as if the whole world is acting according to the interests of the pharmaceutical companies, which fuels, for example, the opponents of vaccines.
Is the tag you chose ethics? really? And what about journalistic ethics? To publish a public relations message in any language just because the subject of the message is your sister?
Good morning, I've been saying this for years.
Today everything is money and as much as possible and it doesn't matter at whose expense and if it matters or not.
50 תגובות
A vaccinator who bases her opinion on press releases and doesn't have a single smoking gun?
Thanks the scientist, goodbye and thanks for all the fish.
All the cardiness has turned into stupidity.
I will not come back here.
Dr. Yaffe Shir-Raz's article is interesting, amazing. Worth consideration and attention. Mainly of the doctors and medical teams affected by it.
Hidden advertising is doubly harmful due to the anesthetization of the immune mechanisms of readers in general and readers in Kortaim in particular. The newspaper Haaretz and its sponsor De Marker use this scam in particular, but other newspapers do not play hand in hand either.
The man known as "doesn't understand" (forgive me, I'll use unscientific language: the nickname you gave yourself - moron. What's wrong with a simple human nickname that's easy to incorporate into a response text?)
There is a theory of the ball warming and there are those who deny it.
I understood from your words that (the vast majority) do not deny the warming, but claim that it is accidental as it has always happened. And I'm sure it did happen.
The mere claim that an event happens sometimes does nothing to explain it. Solar eclipses happen sometimes. lunar eclipse. rain. clouds. Summer heat and winter cold. Day and night cycles. length of day and night. the sight of the moon Life, birth, death.
Does the mere fact that they happen in cycles absolve us of an explanation? No! The explanation is required whether the phenomenon is cyclical or one-time. And so we understand that the day lengthens during the summer up to a certain maximum and then recedes again. And this is how we understand the course of the moon, its form that diminishes to zero and back to the full moon. And due to our precise understanding we are able to explain, date, quantify, predict.
And here, there is no doubt, at least apparently, that something is wrong with the Earth. He is warming up. The sea level is rising. There are entire islands that disappear into the sea. The main body of science claims: "It is man-made. Greenhouse Effect". There is no problem proving that there is a greenhouse effect. There is a problem to quantify.
But it is not so clear to me what the deceivers claim. I assume the detractors support one or more of the following claims:
No warming (biased tests. politics. lies)
There is warming. But it is not a greenhouse effect. It's just something unclear.
There is warming and this is its reason: a, b, c.
The deceivers cannot pull their strings and say "the onus of proof is on you". When there is such a central theory that the majority of the scientific world is in favor of - they have to respond. They must respond. Because the fate of the earth may be decided because of this.
In your response I do not see intelligent claims, messages, proofs. There is "eat me drink me". So I tried not to call you a denier but a "deceived" (which is fine). And it contains nothing but the claim of a typical idolater: "Everything is from God." Everything is cyclical." Sorry. You don't go to the grocery store with it.
Explain to us, please (or refer to the article) why the greenhouse effect is irrelevant? Alternatively, present us with an orderly theory that explains why there is warming now, when it will stop, what are the causes of it, what is the maximum warming.
Do not understand
The most correct thing in your response is that you don't understand.
The atmosphere is warming, even though we should be in the process of cooling right now.
We know how much GHG man emits, and we know that GHG is a greenhouse gas.
If you think man has no effect on the climate then you are delusional. The damage to the ozone is a fact. The warming is a fact.
I'll tell you one more little thing. In the Grand Canyon area today there is a haze that was not there before. Checked and found that this haze comes from China. Do you still want to claim that a person has no influence?
Don't understand, continue to live in the imaginary world of the Koch brothers. Please move the discussion to the article dealing with global warming, although even there it will be fruitless, because there is no common denominator between them that can be reached.
"If all scientists agree that.."
A. Not all scientists agree that ... please check the studies I sent
B. Even if all the scientists and religious priests agree that man is to blame and responsible for the weather - there are facts and it is better to evaluate facts instead of looking for "authority" between Ann is a "rabbi", a pagan doctor, a religious priest or even a "scientist" -
Some facts that I have already presented, but it seems that you didn't bother to check (and I think they will hit you like a ton of bricks, you won't recognize them).
The world has warmed and cooled since the dawn of history - examples are Modrom Minma, Optimum Maxima, the Ice Age, etc. - we have no influence on weather cycles. What's more, the sun's actions have been taken out of the equation and it determines whether we are heading towards warming or a kind of ice age.
third. All I can do is present facts - but what evidence can you bring to a person who does not value evidence?
The earth has been warming and cooling since time immemorial - we have nothing to do with it - even if we really want to.
Carbon dioxide, methane and other species were here even before there was oxygen in the atmosphere...as soon as there is an excess of gases. The population of methanotrophs (a species of bacteria that feeds on its cells and converts it to organic holes and finally to sugar)
The same goes for carbon dioxide - we noted that bacteria turned it into oxygen, green and red elite (trees, seaweed, etc.) - in fact we noted that it was bacteria that created oxygen as the composition of the atmosphere was mostly methane and carbon dioxide
Personally, I don't understand the need to control the world, and the "the sky is falling on us" approach
The world turned before you were born and will probably continue after
If the entire atmosphere is carbon dioxide - populations of anaerobic bacteria that feed on toxic gases such as sulfides, ammonia, methane, and carbon dioxide will turn the equation back to clean oxygen (La Stelier's Law)
my father
The argument of does not make sense. Replace the word "God" with "evolution", then you will understand how ridiculous your claimant is.
Unless you were trying to say something else….
Self-reflection?
A serious bunch of bloated nads have gathered here that there is a situation where the level of air pollution on Earth exceeds the standard.
Your argument is flawed, if all climate scientists prove that there is warming and that it is man-made, a counter argument is denial.
my father
You won't find articles denying global warming
Just like you won't find scientific articles that deny God's inventions
There is no need to deny what does not exist
There is a paradox in the body of the request to present a scientific article that "denies" something that does not exist (and you can only deny something that exists)
This is a nonsensical circular argument
So
The best thing about these articles is that you get peak activity on the site - and that's why I remove my participation in the discussion so as not to support additional articles as if they only detract from the value of the site in my opinion
Research by Valentina Zharkova, published in the Royal Astronomical Society - it is claimed that the sun is going to reduce electromagnetic activity by sixty percent and we are entering a "mini ice age" from the year 1645 to the year 1750. It may have already started. It happened in the past about three hundred years ago (search on Wikipedia) Maunder Minimum (XNUMX-XNUMX) - a kind of ice age that caused crop destruction and changing seasons - search it's not "controversial" - the phenomenon is described extensively in fiction and art from that period... so you don't have to A scientist or religious priest can determine that the world is warming or cooling - and it is not because of our intervention.
Al Gore is not a scientist - and global warming has been politicized and polarized - so any published research is a limited liability.
The new strategy is a terminological change from warming to "weather change", semantic games and its verbal loopholes and science has nothing - the theory of global warming has been expanded to everything that no longer has any meaning (like the word love) - so that any change (cold, heat) in the weather will fit to theory.
There is no scientific debate about climate change.
There has always been a change in the weather, even before we were here - the Ice Age, the book of names, years of famine, drought, flood, etc.
There was also global warming (check on Wikipedia) in the Middle Ages (search in English "Mid Evil Optimum") a time when it was so hot that the North Pole bloomed - and Northern Greenland was green (hence the name Green Land) ... there is more but enough to shatter many of the myths - the changes Even then, the goddess treated the soft actions of man, who corrupts, pollutes and despises the land - and whoever does not repent is the enemy of humanity - then it was religious priests - today it is radical scientists and politicians.
Don't feel the need to deny. The burden of proof is on the claimant not the denier - the denier has to challenge the theory with one inconsistency in order for it to fall. I'm not a "warming denier" either. The medieval optimum was a warm period in which Norway was as hot as the south of France - what can be challenged is the claim (which is debunked in my view) that it is the fault of man who corrupts and pollutes the land and leaves nature (the bright sun) and "Mother Earth" angry - And they punish us with brutal weather
In every XNUMXst year chemistry book at the university it is claimed that in the XNUMXth century the earth warmed by one degree?
How did they come to this conclusion? What is the standard deviation at such a level of accuracy? Probably zero (because real temperature is measured in Kelvin and if so the temperature any beginning statistician would say is that the temperature is one up or down for a hundred years
(301 or 300 Kelvin) is remarkably stable.
In fact, in the formulas in thermodynamics, you will refer to it as a constant temperature (isothermal system)...
In any case, it seems to me that I brought enough data that the site will never see - because this data does not support the theory of global warming.
One last note
I have no problem with the presentation of global warming on the site. Only for the political nature of the theory is always presented here. And how the arguments of the skeptics in the articles when they are already presented is to make them laugh. You call people like me "worshippers of the tycoons" and on the other hand Al Gore (a man who received a Naban peace award for a pile of lies) and the "scientists" he leans on are presented as objective.
The one who "worships the tycoons" (and the government is an arch-tycoon) is the one who justifies the billions they take from him for the weather, the car, the farts (metheine) and the carbon dioxide in his Diet Coke...
I don't have any more time, I hope we learned something today
Do not understand
You really don't understand what consensus is. Do you have a single article by a global warming denier published in a professional journal?
Beyond that, warming is a fact that has evidence from dozens of different and independent directions. Please read the website http://www.skepticalscience.com They bring references to their every claim, the deniers don't really do that and just say eat me drink me the human cycle is small compared to the earth and all kinds of other unquantifiable claims.
The name change is due to political pressure. Climate change is only in one direction - up.
There is no other side, just like there is no other side to evolution or a side that claims the earth is the center of the universe. Let them feel comfortable on pseudo-scientific websites, with me you will only get the consensus, if God forbid it deviates from the consensus, it will be a betrayal of the readers.
You managed to drive the system crazy... I also lost a response now
No problem giving access, just tell me how to do it. Not giving access is probably Facebook's default.
Well, I'm a bit fed up - the whole intention was not to argue but to convey my feeling as a reader.
I certainly have no intention of justifying myself, on all kinds of refutable arguments, to anyone, (Ethan, this refers to you).
Abby, do you want my review? You're welcome. You don't want to, you are also invited, but know that on the side of this decision there are other people who do not react actively but feel the same as me.
It's rare to come across such a large number of responses other than arguments with evolution or climate denier trolls.
I have a feeling that all these responses do not come from a place of scientific integrity or fairness in the selection of my father's articles.
This is not the first article on the website that was published and summarizes a doctoral thesis.
Did any of the commenters find an error or bias in the data and conclusions of the dissertation?
Your censorship, my father, is out of place. If you have a problem with your sister, don't solve it by censoring. It would have been better if you had not uploaded this pseudo-nothing to the site. Especially not as a PR announcement. This has nothing to do with science.
There is no problem in proving someone for his actions. I did not attack her as a person, but I have a criticism of what she writes.
I cannot comment on Facebook because we are not friends and you do not give access to anyone who is not your friend. You try to enjoy all the worlds. It's childish and petty.
"The claim you make is a conspiracy theory"
No because not only do you not deny the claims (about global warming) you even justify them. What is claimed is not an anti-ether conspiracy theory but rather the identification of a periodic pattern- (I do this every day in the lab. Does that mean chemical reactions are a conspiracy theory?)
I have no desire to bash you - I just wanted to perhaps shed some light that it might be better for the website to remain purely scientific without political motivation.
As a science lecturer even if I agree with the global warming theories - I go out of my way to make students from the other side of the fence feel comfortable in my classes... It would be nice if you would consider the same strategy.
The theories of global warming as man-made are not agreed upon by the entire scientific community (as part of the scientific community I personally know the people who work - the silent majority does not support the theory, the minority who support it are usually people with a very high political motivation) there is no point in explanations, but I will send you to look into the matter - one evidence of this is that in recent years the terminology has suddenly changed from global warming to "climate change". I remember they said that by XNUMX there will be about forty million climate refugees in this world. The "study" was published on the UN website. Al Gore claimed (and it's on YouTube) at every possible conference that by September two thousand and fifteen all the northern arctic glaciers will melt completely...
There is no scientific debate about climate change... there has always been climate change (the Ice Age, the beginning of the Bronze Age, there were thirty degrees in Scandinavia, etc.)
The world cools and warms in cycles.
The debate is whether man is responsible for the change / warming
Additional problems in global warming
One problem I mentioned is that there is no scientific debate on the other side (show me an article with my counterarguments that doesn't present them just to make fun of them on your site).
Using emotional blackmail that "the sky is falling" urges that "there is no time", to borrow a language like holocaust deniers and apply it to anyone who does not agree with the dogmatism of the theory ("warming deniers") and makes it difficult to trust it, creating feelings of guilt for the heavy damage of Those who do not enthusiastically support the theory cause the world, and other classic tricks that every religious demagogue uses.
You have a site with fantastic potential - if you maintain a high scientific standard
Well, caught on the minor point of Pharma or Big Pharma, you can give it up with a quiet heart.
Regarding the conclusion that medicines do not help - this is implied from the title and the article (Snoring Diseases) and the lack of reference to the data of 'what does it mean' to actually deliver messages to the press. What did they learn from this? That Dr. Itai Gal publishes some nonsense or two on YNET..? Happy old age.
Sorry for the excess of comments - problems with uploading the site for me.
Where did my last comment go?
I will repeat my words with renewed reference -
My questions, and my points, stand on their own, and are not related to any body.
The entire website infrastructure allows anonymous responses, as long as you allow it - you must also answer them, otherwise what's the point? I personally don't get a dime from any party in this story, I only raise questions that arise in my mind - accusations of this kind, do not add any more professionalism to the answer of any of us.
Skeptic, I've heard the phrase pharma companies at legitimate medical conferences, even Big Pharma. How did you come to the conclusion that the drugs do not help? As for exaggerations - I am at least of the opinion that the truth is also strong enough that it does not need to be "upgraded". Dr. Avinoam Raks, former chairman of the Ethics Committee of the Medical Association, also used this phrase and even quoted its English source in an article on Channel 1.
The answer is in the body of the question - you set up a system that allows this, and as such, you are exposed to anonymous questions. there's nothing to do. If you want to charge a full name, that's your right, but you'll be breaking the normal messaging system.
By the way, the questions here are not related to any company, in any way. If it helps, I'm a computer guy, not getting funded by anyone, but just expressing my opinion on this topic.
It is transparent - I do not work for a pharmaceutical company, nor a doctor, nor a publicist, nor a lobbyist nor a journalist.
Capish?
I only skimmed it so I won't go into depth, yet.
It is clear where the "disease sniffers" came from - the opening paragraph of the work opens with this phrase (without any reference!!!). From here on there is arrow throwing (page 90) and from here on the drawing of the target begins. It is self-evident what the conclusion of the study will be just by reading the title. If the gun appears in the first act, it fires in the third act.
At least in the section that raises the methodological problems, everything is true, but missing. The main problem is the exchange between cause and effector. As the saying goes, "Turn it around, turn it around."
After reading (and even skimming), it reinforces my initial feeling that this coverage has no place on a serious science site. There is no science here, but politics and economics.
Skeptic, how exactly am I supposed to treat anonymous comments? After all, anyone can write what they want, even those with interests. On Facebook at least they know who the person is and can identify if they have interests. It is permissible to be skeptical of any news, in this specific case, I encountered a problem, and there is even an office that because I caught them in the attempts to deceive, I do not open their emails and they also represent patient associations.
Hi Abby,
After reading the article and the comments, I would like to add my two divorcees to the matter...
beginning,
I don't think it's a reasonable request to respond to you in a Facebook thread for several reasons:
* We are not Facebook members.
* Sometimes we prefer to express ourselves anonymously - without the accompanying consequences.
Second,
Although I agree with you that if bias exists, it should and should be presented, especially in a community whose role is to research the same substance/medicine. But I do not agree with the nature of the presentation of the "article" above, again, for several reasons (which I will try to summarize to the most important points in my opinion):
* The fact that an article was published in a newspaper, does not prevent you as another publishing body - from criticizing it, and deciding whether it meets the 'standard', especially when there is a conflict of interests. There are more than enough articles in the press that the connection between them and 'real' scientific information does not exist, and if 'Hidan' becomes a conduit for their promotion, it will be a shame.
* If we are talking about throwing the baby out with the bath water, this is how the article portrays the matter. Admittedly, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about the entire industry, but it gives the impression that everyone, impeccably, works like the organized mafia, and my spider senses tickle and say that there may be a very blatant exaggeration here, and a tremendous lack of division into cases. Is it for a specific company or in general? Is it in certain medications? What do the interviews with the 49 professionals have to do with the matter? How many messages do exaggerate the product's activity? Do they draw it 10% or 200% better?
* The blunt expression of "snoring diseases" is jarring to the depths of my soul, as if all the medicines were only meant to enrich one's pocket, and none of them solves the problems for which they were created. If indeed this is what you want to claim, the body of evidence should be huge, massive and crazy to the point that it will earn the site a crazy "tarpik" from all the bodies that have interests. Otherwise, it borders on defamation - and demagoguery in the shekel of 'appeal to emotion', and the location of such arguments, not on such a site.
* As well as - between complaining about an illness and promoting the products in the press there is a huge chasm. There is no logical conclusion between the two. Even if we accept the fact as arbitrary, and the pharmaceutical companies do advertise products illegally, **** it still doesn't mean that drugs don't help, aren't good, aren't helpful, don't treat or that there is a 'snort of diseases' ****, I don't know How much can I emphasize this problem beyond the stars.
* Not that I think for a moment that the pharmaceutical companies do not have financial interests in carrying out certain moves, which do not always contribute to the public - there is not enough data here to justify this call. And the use of "Pharma", which may be a bit silly to complain about, but it immediately plays into the hands of anti-vaccines and anti-science in general, the use of "Big Pharma".
* As a non-regular reader, who comes in here and there, it hurts me personally to see a Tamka headline with a Takma article (or Haaretz, NRG or any other newspaper), where the headline is pointlessly grandiose, and the body of the article does not support the headline or the conclusion. It's quite disappointing to go to a place that you can trust often, and see that it is run as a superficial article for promotion.
To be fair -
I do not come to accuse you, nor your sister, of intentional misrepresentation or slander or anything else that may be inferred from the above, on the contrary -
I just come to point out points that I find very problematic so that you can improve both in this article and in the future, and present content that, at least in my opinion, will be better.
Thank you,
skeptic.
I would appreciate it if you would move the discussion to a post about the article on my Facebook wall
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=619849214822935&id=100003935858082&comment_id=619852908155899
Shaabi is attacked by experienced publicists in the guise of the site's readers
I uploaded Yaffe's complete doctoral thesis to the site's server (not the signed version, but certainly the final one).
https://www.hayadan.org.il/images/content2/underregulationradar.pdf
Why is my comment still waiting for approval?
If you criticize me, criticize something right,
1. Global warming is not a shaky theory but the scientific consensus and one of the strengths of the site is the adherence to the scientific consensus.
2. Religion - somewhere it is written that I only criticize the injustices that are done only in the name of the Jewish religion
Here you go Islam
https://www.hayadan.org.il/isis-effect-1201158
https://www.hayadan.org.il/when-religion-freedom-crash-with-freeodm-of-speach-1001153
Christianity
https://www.hayadan.org.il/bill-nye-won-the-debate-0502143
The claims against GMOs are political masquerading as science: http://www.wsci.org.il/#!sir-richard-j-roberts/c1bl3
What is the connection between legitimate criticism of the gas and pharmaceutical companies and anti-Semitism? In general, the feeling is that despite the social protest, beneath the surface the blind worship of tycoons continues and they can do whatever they want and take over the world economy without criticism because any criticism is illegitimate to the point of anti-Semitism - the claim you make is itself a conspiracy theory.
The research deals with the analysis of press releases, some of which also reached me as a journalist, and you should say thank you that I did not publish them after I understood the true purpose of the oil for its intended purpose, and in some cases also to avoid a lawsuit (there was once a press release in which an organization of patients compared two treatments and came to the conclusion that a certain treatment is That's right, and I had a suspicion that the publicists work with the same pharmaceutical company that 'incidentally' is claimed to be better). I take such messages with a grain of salt, and therefore, among other things, you will hardly see news about large pharmaceutical companies, but about startups in the field of biotechnology and medical devices.
My father unfortunately I agree if one man. You have to decide if this is a news political or scientific site. I'm glad it enlightens your attention, I left the site intermittently several times due to articles with a political color. At other times, if I see your name, I don't open the article - not as a boycott, but because I feel that the articles are biased, and many of us readers read science websites to escape politically charged articles.
Here are some examples
1. Global warming (to this day, the side that doubts the shaky theory has never been presented, and I don't know if the study that we are marching towards a kind of ice age has been presented)
2. Childbirth restriction (in an article that addresses the Western man with sharp criticism - even though he behaves in the most responsible manner on the subject)
Articles against the ultra-Orthodox ignorance (and also an ultra-orthodox birth) compared to zero criticism of the Islamic ignorance which is the real danger these days to Western civilization (I am not presenting a political position but a statistical description based on the total majority of head coverings at this given moment in the world)
And how not? Conspiracy theories - articles against the gas and pharmaceutical companies - everyone knows the theories, and those who live abroad know that those who believe in these theories almost without exception also hold opinions against the banks (or bankers - a new and sophisticated term for Jews), Wall Street (Jews) and America (ruled by Jews)
The criticism, my father, is unfortunately justified, don't forget that ninety-seven percent of customers on average don't complain (like me), the remaining three percent are usually the most loyal customers (I like to go to the website, or "it's convenient for me because this store is close to my home/work," I want to keep coming back here, but the fruits are not fresh/the selection of products is limited" etc.); You should listen... the site will only benefit from it.
Arguments against GMOs are not a political debate but a scientific one - a huge difference.
Medicines that do not encourage resistance to antibiotics is the subject of extensive research at the moment all over the world - the strategy is to disrupt communication between bacteria (for example creating microfilms)
The woman (Dr. Raz) has never seen the inside of a laboratory and has no idea how long a drug (mother) travels until it reaches the shelf.
to the body of an article
There is a mix-up between prescription drugs (such as vaccines, drugs for cancer patients, etc.) for which advertising is strictly prohibited. and over-the-counter "medicines" - most of which are low-risk (pills, Norofen, etc.) or nutritional supplements (which are not medicine at all),
I don't see a problem there - you can't demand that they advertise in a different way than cosmetics companies or shampoo "with a special formula" that prevents shedding, or chewing gum that "whitens the teeth".
Of course, excessive use of Nurofen can be harmful, but so can cola (two, obesity, diabetes, cancer (from benzoic acid), phosphoric acid, etc.)
The responsibility is also on the discretion of the consumer
Wishing you a good week
One person, just as I don't like being judged by a person's body and not by the substance of the matter, I don't like it being done to others. The question at the moment is whether the problem is correct and exists. You see any criticism of the pharmaceutical companies as forbidden, but you will be surprised. This week I was at a lecture by the Nobel laureate, Prof. Sidney Altman, and he was very angry at the pharmaceutical companies that do not invest in the development of antibiotics that bacteria will have difficulty developing resistance to (and I plan to upload the Zet article and a summary of Vachatan's lecture Another Nobel Prize from the conference in Jerusalem last week that talked about the opposition to GM as no less than a crime against humanity will soon be on the site.)
So there are legitimate claims against the drug companies and this is one of them. This is how the research should be judged.
If it is urgent for you until I find out where the study can be read, you are welcome to contact the Department of Communication.
post Scriptum. I'm sure that the boycott stems from my integrity, because if I had behaved in unethical ways (and I won't go into details) I would have received budgets a long time ago.
Father, I will explain one more time:
1. The use of the expressions "disease spreaders" is very inappropriate. Meanwhile, those who are responsible for the fact that life expectancy has increased are not communication doctors but those pharmaceutical companies that develop drugs and vaccines.
2. The presentation of the research results probably indicates the research. For example: "Doctors use narratives and myths in the description of diseases and drugs, glorify the benefits of drugs and ignore risks and side effects." We are talking about the same article that published intimidation articles such as this one: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3339824,00.html which deals with the alleged dangerousness of the flu vaccine based on a single case that was allegedly caused by a vaccine. An irresponsible article in my opinion that ignores about 3000 deaths from the flu and related lung diseases.
We are talking about a reporter whose articles are frequently cited by vaccine opponents. The same vaccines that are one of the greatest achievements of science since time immemorial.
3. There is no place to tell about a doctoral thesis in the department of communication, even if it deals with a topic that is supposedly related to science. The work has no scientific value. Perhaps it has value for those who deal with the media and especially for those who receive press releases and pass them on as they are without minimal checking.
4. Especially when the work itself has not yet been attached so that it and its methods can be tested.
This conduct surrounding this press release greatly devalues the knowledge site. As of this moment, we, the readers, have no idea how many PR announcements like this have passed as they are, especially when this one has no place on the website. This is a serious damage to the site's reputation in my opinion.
After all, you cry all the time that you don't get paid and you don't have budgets and all. How do you want to be taken seriously if you contribute to that entire community of pseudoscience advocates?
And another question is over.
According to the university's website this month this doctorate celebrates a year.
Why is this message being published now?
This is the right link
http://www.iba.org.il/program.aspx?scode=1873459
"Turn baldness into a disease"?
Please show me the medical literature on the subject.
Last time I checked baldness has been bothering people since the time of the Bible and no one invented anything new here, but maybe Teva and Fraser started the campaign 6000 years ago, here is something else the doctor can write about.
One man, what is blatant in what I wrote? I wrote that the facts should be referred to in every journalistic article, and if (according to the table in the Haretz article) the scientific data differ from those presented by the pharmaceutical companies, they should be published and not manipulated. In my opinion, every deadly disease needs treatment, and it doesn't matter how many will actually get it, even one in a thousand means 8,000 people in Israel alone. Each person is a whole world, so for me, even if the numbers are less beautiful than those of the pharmaceutical companies and even if there are several competing drugs and not just the one presented by them, the public should know that.
Isn't it a bit hypocritical that a woman who makes a living from scaremongering against life-saving medical treatments writes against scaremongering?
Doctoral theses should be free, so that other researchers can refer to them. I will check with her and the university where the article can be read, in an online version.
I did not understand the criticism, given the circumstances, knowingly Specific It would have been better to leave the original wording. Surely this is a science news site. It is a fact that I report not only on the studies in Israel but all over the world. I am also preparing a project following the visit of many Nobel laureates to an event in Jerusalem.
Wow, what a stupid argument - if everyone posted it must be fine. Remind you that Haaretz newspaper also lost defamation lawsuits against him? Legal advice is not equivalent to protection against lawsuits or the ability to successfully defend against them.
Second, using such blunt language is not exactly appropriate for a website that claims to be scientific.
Third, there is no reference to anything that can be taken seriously. Again, this probably doesn't add seriousness to this site.
Decide if you are a science news site or a news site that provides a platform for PR messages. Does this doctoral thesis have any scientific meaning and value? According to me no. But it's hard to stand up to the family, apparently.
As for quoting a press release, I explained that it would have been better to do it that way precisely for the ethical reasons.
Snoring diseases is quite a broad term, ranging from ignoring inconvenient data, omitting details that change the picture (and believe me, it is enough that one in fifty women may get breast cancer, or one in a thousand girls who are infected with the papillomavirus will also get cervical cancer to fight these diseases.) to to absolute lies.
And again, if they had issued notices on behalf of the company itself (as the University of Haifa did) and not on behalf of any association, and published the results of studies proving their claim, they could have been taken seriously. Besides, if this phrase was quoted in so many places - including the Haaretz newspaper, there is no fear of a lawsuit, nor would the University of Haifa issue a legally problematic announcement.
If I were a pharmaceutical company, I would sue the form for Blizovsky. "Snoring diseases"? Then you wonder if they don't take you seriously. Copy paste of public relations announcements. Wait, isn't that exactly the subject of this PhD?
How can this matter be taken seriously, should one even read the original work? Is it transparency? Is this science?
And one more thing, the universities do not behave in a way that violates the rules of ethics. I have a lot of criticism for the speakers and I tell them openly, but not in this area. I have no problem with press releases as long as the things written in them are true, and the only motive is the visible motive - to promote the name of the university/company/institution as a place where good research is done, and not some kind of agenda to use the media to manipulate this or that decision maker (Health basket). If the pharmaceutical company wanted to be proud of the research it is doing, they should have issued a statement on their behalf and be proud of the product, and not hide behind patient organizations.
Precisely because of this it is better that I am not the one to write the article unlike other media outlets, for example Ido Efrati in Haretz.
http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/health/1.2708414
And regardless, I have a stomach full of publicists who do tricks, to sell medicine even if it is the most important in the world. I am always in favor of telling the truth and transparency, and I also receive these messages. There is a certain office that makes it a practice to represent patient organizations and doctors who talk about a certain drug as if it is the only solution and it turns out that this is not the case and strange, because these associations should have been in favor of competition. The ministry also did not use to mention (nowadays less so) the name of the company that produces that wonder drug, although there is no problem finding it easily on Google. Now I don't post anything that comes from that office, even if it's legitimate news because they can't be trusted.
Such practices in many cases cause the baby to be thrown out with the bath water, as if the whole world is acting according to the interests of the pharmaceutical companies, which fuels, for example, the opponents of vaccines.
Is the tag you chose ethics? really? And what about journalistic ethics? To publish a public relations message in any language just because the subject of the message is your sister?
Good morning, I've been saying this for years.
Today everything is money and as much as possible and it doesn't matter at whose expense and if it matters or not.
http://www.iba.org.il/program.aspx?scode=1917734
Watch starting at minute 13:35
Professor Avinoam Raks talks about Yaffe's doctoral thesis