I asked a question, concerning research conducted by pharmaceutical companies on their own product.
Its a bit disingenuous to suggest that such questions are attempt to be savvy, when they are grounded in reality.
The conversations in this thread are apt for displaying masculinity.
Men like to argue on various matters.
I will repeat that ALL research has the potential for bias and bad ethics. It is not logically possible for someone to hold that position AND that " all research funded by multi national companies is presented in an ethical and unbiased manner", so it makes no sense that you would ask that question in the first place or continue as if it is a valid response to anything I have said.
When these factors are inherent in all research it is essential we have a way to interrogating the possible sources of bias and their impact in the findings. This is a key part of what anyone involved in science does. Simply pointing to the source of funding is just not an effective tool in that arsenal because it does nothing to identify where that bias is and how it has impacted the investigation. Can you identify an issue in the study design that would have biased the results towards what the sponsor would have wanted? Did they use the right statistical methods? Have they interpreted those statistics correctly and used the right language to describe them? What data have they neglected to show? What context of the rest of the literature have they failed to take into account in framing their findings? This is a deep, deep hole that people who care about bias can get lost down, but pointing to a source of funding without following it up with any actual critique of the study itself has no value at all. Furthermore, if that is all someone has it leaves them far too credulous to the validity of research conducted with other funding. An academic scientist running their lab on nothing but government grants still has publication pressure to continue a successful career trajectory and that brings with it its own potential for bias and unethical practices.
I should also point out that corporations rarely ever directly conduct research on their own products, not even pharma companies. Not only are the lines between Sponsor (the company) and the investigator (the independent scientist conducting the study) very clear and well defined, and an enormous amount of time and money is spent ensuring those lines are maintained on any given study and can be demonstrated on audit.
Fixed
2 Likes
âBoffinsâ 
Many moons ago, I was toying with the idea of growing a beard. My girlfriend at the time passed me some sage advice handed down to her through the female side of her family: never trust a man with a beard, as he invariably has something to hide.
2 Likes
Thank you for the clarity.
My question, which I feel was legitimate was addressed to your post which I think didnât delivered that sort of clarity.
Ok, so itâs confirmed that spending good money (no matter whoâs it is) to find that eating a full English makes you more masculine, is as useful to humanity as extending Evertons trophy cabinet
I was alway taught itâs men with a tasche that are hiding something. Bearded men just canât be arsed shaving.
Complete and utter bollocks!
Trust me, as a beard holder, I know the truth is that beards are freaking awesome and women only tell you not to grow one as it is just another form of controlling you 
Quod erat domunstrandum.
1 Like
Plenty to hide, there.
the only thing it hides is crumbs for snacking later in the day
2 Likes
I was half expecting a bird to be nesting in there, Ă la Miss Crabtree in South Park.
1 Like
Nah, Iâm saving the nesting birds for when I grow a mullet 
Call yourself an Aussie? You should have had one when you were twelve.
I rocked a mullet and a mohawk for a while.
I should add, def wasnât a proper punk mohawk. Punks would have kicked the shit out of me.
You canât drop a bombshell like that and not post pics of it