Someone sent me a message, identifying me as a “science nut.” Well, no, but OK. Watch this video, they said, tell me what you think. I watched 32 seconds of it. The logos and graphics did not comport with anything that made sense.
I do not, I said, put any stock in this video.
But au contraire, the person that sent me this video disagreed, as you might imagine. This person put a great deal into it. “There are 14 peer reports and over 27 self funded university studies published.”
There were not. There are 12. Most conducted by the the company marketing the product. Ten of those were performed in a circumstance that don’t actually produce any results, but reads like a fishing expedition. Two human tests have been done. One of them makes no sense, the other disagrees with the company’s marketing.
You often here, in commercials shilling shady products, impressive lines like “double blind” and “independent study.” Sounds impressive at least, and moved the person that wrote me.
The note concluded thusly: “Can’t argue with science.”
Oh, well, then. I had no idea.
Here’s this week’s Crimson. There are a few errors, there are always a few, but generally it is a very sharp effort. Given that finals are looming, I’m proud of all of their hard work.
The story that goes with that lead art is here. You can, of course, go here for the rest.
Charter will pull their people from social media. I’ve found it is best not to try to make sense of anything Charter does. It is also best not to try to make sense of anything Charter doesn’t do. It is best to just not consider Charter.
This is the place where nihilism and solipsism (ahem) intersect. Such Cartesian dualism has no place in dealing with such highly intellectual types like those answering the phones at Charter.
The New York Post photograph? Should have never been published. David Carr minces few words on it. Gawker asked Pulitzer-winning photogs for their takes on the issue.
Lots of great stuff there, including:
- Professor John Freeman from the University of Florida: In my classes, I always teach that photographers should help first and take pictures second. In the contest of “a photo vs. a life,” the life should always win. But what if the Post photographer couldn’t help the man on the tracks?
- Professor Roy S. Gutterman from Syracuse University: Once a reporter or photographer lends a hand to someone, that journalist ceases being a journalist and becomes part of the story. There’s no way to maintain the independence as a journalist and participate in a news event at the same time.
- Professor John Kaplan from the University of Florida: The blame in this controversy lies directly with the New York Post for publishing such a callous, crude and truly tasteless headline while at the same time wrongly splashing the tragedy on the front page.
An interactive global cancer map:
Cancer is often considered a disease of affluence, but about 70% of cancer deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. Explore this interactive map to learn about some cancers that disproportionately affect poorer countries.
Very nicely done project. Helpful, too.
Remember, you can’t argue with science.
