Bias and cognitive dissonance still rampant
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“Just listened to the August episode about fluoride in pregnant women and found it fascinating how they compared it to the “anti vaxxers” and Andrew Wakefield’s paper. Anyone who has researched the issue knows that what that paper stated has now been replicated many times over. Isn’t it the definition of hypocritical to say that you used to think it was junk science but now would advice pregnant women to drink bottled water after this paper... while still talking about those hesitant about vaccines as though they’re “crazy”? Have we learned nothing? We all know that there is science on both sides of the vaccine issue- as there is with fluoride. Do you really want to be on the wrong side of history there too? I encourage you to mind your affirmative comments and remember “tobacco” science. It’s the same with fluoride. The same company that killed thousands with vioxx is also making vaccines but cannot be sued. Be careful what you say this episode may come back to bite you one day.”
Sunit Suchdev via Apple Podcasts ·
Canada ·
01/14/20
More reviews of JAMA Pediatrics Editors' Summary
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“I listen to several journal podcasts, and this is my favorite by a large margin--the conversation is smart and engaging, and I always learn something. Great podcast for clinicians who want to know not just the "what" but also the "how do I apply it" about current pediatric research.”
KateinCanada via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
06/29/16
Do you host a podcast?
Track your ranks and reviews from Spotify, Apple Podcasts and more.
Listen now
Links
Genres
Artwork or description wrong?
Request an update »
Updates may take a few minutes.
Do you host a podcast?
Track your ranks and reviews from Spotify, Apple Podcasts and more.
