[deleted] t1_irf9p94 wrote
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irfays6 wrote
> dangerous misinformation
Oh! Better alert the guardians!
> doing science, especially biological science, is very difficult to fully control
It wasn't brand-related enzymatic variance that caused oxycontin to be proclaimed non addictive. You're trying to obscure the argument with overtechnicality and moralistic finger wagging. How dare I criticise science? Bud, you're in the wrong sub.
[deleted] t1_irfcmm4 wrote
[deleted]
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irfdyya wrote
> you’re directly trying to link “corruption” with the reproducibility crisis
Data that doesn't reflect objective reality is by definition corrupted, but yes of course human-related financial corruption is a major factor- from the clinic to the corpotate pharm boardroom. How could it possibly not be a factor, given human nature? What other explaination would you propose for the scientific vetting of oxycontin?
> I’m a career scientist
Who funds your grants?
[deleted] t1_irff3jf wrote
[deleted]
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irgyxt0 wrote
> Additionally, you’re fixated on just this oxy question for some reason.
Leading cause of death for 18-45 adults in usa. No big deal?
iiioiia t1_irfgyfk wrote
>Wondering about my funding, implying that despite a decade of training to become a scientist, and all the experience after, I’m really just in it for the money and so am willing to push false narratives.
This is one possible interpretation, but there are many other possibilities.
Do they not cover the difference between subjective and objective reality in science and philosophy curriculum these days? Or how about psychology - did heuristics get covered at all in your studies?
> I can’t help you.
Whether you can help yourself seems like a more pressing issue.
VitriolicViolet t1_irgnpeu wrote
>How could it possibly not be a factor, given human nature? What other explaination would you propose for the scientific vetting of oxycontin?
you already made up your mind apparently so i dont know why your here.
if you cant think of any possible reasons oxy was passed other then money then god help you (its not like oxy has any medical applications. ffs using your logic all painkillers are designed to make money. fuck me you probably think pharma likes cancer and wouldnt cure it if they could).
'drugs are bad m'kay' isnt an argument and neither is shameless appeals to conspiracy.
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irh18k5 wrote
> you already made up your mind apparently so i dont know why your here.
I find the argument made in the OP to be logical and persuasive.
> if you cant think of any possible reasons oxy was passed other then money then god help you (its not like oxy has any medical applications. ffs using your logic all painkillers are designed to make money. fuck me you probably think pharma likes cancer and wouldnt cure it if they could).
Oxycontin is more addictive with similar efficacy compared to other opioids. Why do you think it was pushed, if not for the billions of usd profit?
iiioiia t1_irfgrok wrote
>As far as whether I’m in the right place, I’m a career scientist with a bonus philosophy degree, I might have a clue.
This may provide some very valuable insight into the metaphysical nature of reality.
Vast-Material4857 t1_irg15q2 wrote
The replication crisis is in the field of psychology not biology.
[deleted] t1_irgpdeb wrote
[deleted]
Vast-Material4857 t1_irgz2wh wrote
Then you have no idea what you're talking. The replication crisis refers to a specific attempt to recreate major cornerstone studies in the field of psychology.
[deleted] t1_irh92qx wrote
[deleted]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments