Guest guest Posted April 8, 2006 Report Posted April 8, 2006 People, be very careful when you are reading articles or articles about articles that your are not imparting your own biased interpretation on what you are reading. As an example - consider the statement "Health effects associated with Sick Building Syndrome may be caused by work related stress." Stuart, I think you just nailed what the problem is. It is not so much that people have preset notions on a subject that would legitimately impact their interpretation of information. It is the intentional spinning of information to one's advantage that is causing confusion and contention. This appears to be quite prevelent in the mold issue. An example of this would be for one to write a review paper with 83 references listed and have this review paper come to the preordained conclusion that human illnesses from mycotoxins is highly unlikely at best, even in the most vulnerable of subpopulations. Yet, when one looks at the 83 references listed, not one of the papers supposedly being review for makes a finding of "highly unlikely at best...". So, sometimes its not the original research paper itself that is the problem, it is the authors' review that causes the promotion of Cigarette Science. Does that make sense? Sharon Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.