Gold Supporter
- Messages
- 2,987
- Reactions
- 6,963
- Thread Starter
- #21
Bias comes in many forms. A preponderance of official looking articles are radially available for support on any subject (true or false) from the internet.Take your pick.
lead poisoning in animals bullets - Google Scholar
Oh, and if you want to read a full text but cannot access it due to licensing I am happy to get it for you.
Pick the first source listed in the link you posted.
"Plos one"
A source I personally would not trust and find unethical and inconsequential.
Funded by the group, or person, who submits the articles or research for publications. (they pay to have their work submitted)
Plos one screens research using Personal, political and or environmental bias, as to which research gets published thereby stacking the research towards their agenda.
Sizeable ethical shame comes from the fact that I have yet to see retractions when research has been debunked.
There's more, but I am endeavoring (possibly unsuccessfully) not to be verbose.
There are other postings with suspect motivations listed also @ that link.
Most pursuers will not go much beyond an article before passing judgment.
For me, who, why, how, did the article become known to me is as important as the subject matter itself in deciphering validity, ethics, morality etc..
If one is going to shout in a megaphone in support of things that impact the world, both the holder of the megaphone and the listener, must show due diligence and go full circle in fact checking.
I am in strict abhorrence of anyone who subscribes to the "collateral damage theory"; the theory that anything goes for the good of the people.
I am not denying Lead can be toxic for any living creatures.
I am denying the current controversial delivery system of lead bullets.