I wish people would stop censoring information needed to make informed consent. If the study is non scientific then point that out, don't try to censor the post. You hurt your own cause by hiding information from intelligent people because that is what makes them suspicious.
back
1 comments
Intelligent people, trying to form their own opinions, aren't doing so from the random assortment of articles that appear on popular web sites. They're reading the primary literature directly, rather than letting the Web pick and choose the articles that it finds interesting.
The vast majority of people aren't capable of that. They're usually taking secondary or tertiary sources, as collected by their favorite aggregators. That's not informed consent, regardless of the conclusion they come to.
Intelligent people recognize that they're not surveying the primary literature. They instead have to trust some informed source. That source must, among other things, pick things that inform rather than mislead. It can't feature every scrap of data -- you might as well just go to the primary sources.
So what makes me suspicious is people claiming "censorship", because most of the time it means "here is a thing that confirms my biases, and I'll ignore all of the things that contradict my biases even though I'm not as expert as I imagine I am".
If you want the facts, they're out there on the NIH web site. If you want HN to pick and choose facts for you, then you're welcome to, but do not fool yourself into believing that it informs consent.