Of course, the Journal of the American Medical Association says that getting your medical information from any type of news media is a bad idea because the information is biased. Patients and even some doctors get their information from news articles that can be based on studies funded by pharmaceutical companies or other potential conflicts of interest. More than 40% of the news sources (in print and online) that they reviewed failed to disclose how the studies they reported on were funded.
My unbiased report is that we're biased. Well, the major news outlets are biased, I'm just an idiot with a keyboard, but that still counts as me being biased by my own stupidity. If you REALLY want to be able to make informed, objective decisions about new drugs or specific medical treatments, you'd better have access to a lab that can do the research for you. And you'd better pray that the lab isn't biased.
Question: Do you still look at news and other information coming from sources that you know are not objective? I do, especially because you can actually get more information from them by reading between the lines.
2 comments:
I still watch the news on occasion, and I read the local free-range, free-expressive weekly paper, but I don't take any of it for face value. I take what I see and interpret it in the way I understand it, keeping whatever facts I find as a reminder. When people start believing everything they see and hear, possible mistakes like McCain getting into office happen. lol!
I kid :p
Happy Halloween!
Happy Halloween to you, too!
I keep thinking "consider the source." Even facts can be suspect.
Have you seen those commercials telling you to look up a study showing that High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is good (or at least not hideously bad) for you? I was just reading something about how both the commercials and the study they refer to were funded by manufacturers of HFCS.
I guess we'll see just how many mistakes can be made next Wednesday (if they're done counting the votes by then).
Post a Comment