Article removed due to inaccuracy

This article has been removed due to inaccuracy.

49 Comments

    • I’m sure its highly important to you to believe that. However, why has there been no serious, credible documentation of a pattern of there being wrong? Wait, there’s no serious, credible documentation of that will Hillary either.

    • Excellent example of how to be anti-science.

      You assume truth only comes from certain sources (conformation bias), stopped reading and then made claims about the article you didn’t read.

      • We assume that peer-review, transparency, and reproducibility are essential to the scientific process. Food Baby doesn’t do these things, but she does take lots of vacations to St. Bart’s. So there’s that.

        • Exactly.
          You make assumptions and have strong confirmation bias.

          Unless of course you have peer-reviewed, transparent, and reproducible studies proving foodbabe always lies and people who take vacations can’t be trusted.

          • Ah…..
            Another person who wants to change definitions in order to save face.

            Please enlighten me about confirmation bias and explain how the original comment on this thread was unbiased.

          • Educate yourself. Do your research. Look it up. BTW, “conformation bias” is not the right spelling either, but it is a common behavior among the anti-science, technophobic, naturalistic fallacy voodoo cult.

          • What if you’re researching internet celebrities who talk about food?

            Try and stay on point though.
            How am I wrong about confirmation bias?

          • She doesn’t have to lie all the time; she doesn’t have to lie at all. All she has to do is say is her usual brand of uninformed drivel without deliberately lying (or her even knowing if what she says is truthful), and the end result will be the same. GIGO.

          • Actually, do a search, there is a lot of citing of peer reviewed data in the refutations of almost everything that idiot says.
            If someone lies to you once, you let it pass and look for a trend, if someone lies to you 6 or 7 hundred times, it’s justifiable to stop listening to anything they say, or anyone that believes they are credible.

          • Then don’t believe her.

            But don’t tell me “snopes didn’t do it because she is the source” (not that you are).

            I’m amazed that people would believe foodbabe or snopes is anything more than what they are.
            There’s no need to identify with one or another.

          • I do go to snopes for the reference section in snopes…turns out it’s pretty good leads to discovering sources that agree with snopes that are widley trusted and peer reviewed.

          • Cool.
            That’s what snopes means to you. You like it.
            Other people like foodbabe.
            Other people like articles about them on this site.

            But it’s still confirmation bias to favor evidence depending on the source.

          • You have no idea what that means, do a quick google search — but, by your definition of the word (which isn’t the definition of the word) favoring the text of legislation as a source for understanding the legislation, or the words of the opinion of the Supreme Court to understand Supreme Court decisions is still considered (by you) confirmation bias.

            Would you like to amend your definition to not include those, and draw a new line somewhere, where we can make a reasonable argument as to what sources are trash, and what sources are good? Maybe we can even stop using words like “confirmation bias” that you don’t understand.

          • “Confirmation bias occurs from the direct influence of desire on beliefs. When people would like a certain idea/concept to be true, they end up believing it to be true. They are motivated by wishful thinking. This error leads the individual to stop gathering information when the evidence gathered so far confirms the views (prejudices) one would like to be true.”

            How’s that definition?
            Are you going to need the source before you can decide if that’s a good enough definition?
            Isn’t that exactly what the original commenter did?

            There’s no need to amend definitions.
            If you have a feeling about your source (negative or positive), you are at risk of bias.
            Sounds pretty simple to me.

          • You failed to address how specifically you draw the line between confirmation bias, and fact based conclusions, and what exactly you need in your mind to pass from one to the other, because as it stands, before your cut and paste of the definition, your words still imply you’re not sure how to manage that line

          • If I were investigating a crime, I would not discount the testimony of a witness just because I don’t like them or because they are a criminal.
            You evaluate the evidence objectively and move on.

            To not even listen to what some witnesses have to say because they are homeless, have a record or tell lies on the internet is stupid.

            To weight a policeman’s testimony as more credible than a criminal’s testimony is to have a bias based on flawed assumptions arrived at through some emotional response.

            That’s pretty much what the DA told us at the jury duty I had recently.

          • I say this with a BS in criminal Justice and being halfway through a master’s in the same (but preparing to switch to law)

            That doesn’t sound like a DA, that sounds like a defense lawyer.

            In Montana an officers testimony is the next best thing to video evidence, and any lawyer worth a shit can get a crackhead’s testimony thrown out — never even makes it to the jurry in most cases.

          • Perfectly explains why our legal system is shit.

            It doesn’t matter what you think, how many classes you take or how unfair is Montana’s legal system.

            The law, and the rationality behind it, is crystal clear.
            It takes less than 5 minutes of internet search to understand this better than all those classes you took.

            If you think cops don’t lie in court you are deluded and unfit to work anywhere near the justice system.

            But, that’s just my opinion. You’ll probably fit right in.

          • It is not a matter of “liking” one over the other – that is how children choose. Foodbabe has a documented history of spewing nonsense, from her claim that airlines add nitrogen to the cabin air, to claiming lemon juice will alkalize your body. If anyone “likes” her as a source of scientific information, then that person is an ignoramus.

          • People like nonsense too. Way more then sense I would wager.

            Foodbabe is just what grew in the conditions we created. I don’t “feel” any more about her than just that.

            If you want to make up stories about her affect on the world then why not make up one where someone finally wants to take their health in their own hands, then follows her for a while, then learns that she isn’t the best source for themselves.

            People learn through bad examples and nonsense too.

          • Why hold foodbabe up to higher standards than our elected officials?

            I understand what you are saying. It would be nice if everything was just as we thought it should be.

            But it’s not. And wishing it were different and feeling negative emotions about it will only poison you and those around you.

            Wouldn’t it make more sense for each of us to be responsible for ourselves rather than wishing others would change?

            Are you doing everything you can to bring about the life you really want?
            Have you even decided what that life is?

    • So you didn’t go read the actual data she linked to?? Way to stay informed! Now that is laughable. Attack the messenger but not the science and data. Classic.

  1. Translation: Kevin Folta provided something called “evidence” to a Snopes article, and this was good enough for them to agree and update their article. End result: anti-GMO fanatics, who have no concept of what true “evidence” is, whine and cry “shill shill shill.” Regarding the New York Times article: http://scibabe.com/folta/ and http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/how-to-attack-a-public-scientist/ and http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/a-vile-personal-attack-on-gmo-scientist-kevin-folta/

    • My God, one man with logic. Run, run fast, the idiots are forming the lynch mob as we speak.

  2. “Widely discredited” would imply more than one, fairly neutral, article. SMH. This level of thinking is how we have Trump in the White House. It’s as though anti-intellectualism were contagious.

  3. Talking about “Which just goes to show they don’t properly research the facts before publishing stories!” do you know how cookies work with google advertisement?

  4. Who actually believes snopes anyway?
    It’s literally “because I read it on the internet”.

      • I won’t expect you to believe anything about yournewswire if you don’t expect me to believe anything about snopes.

        Sound okay to you?

  5. The ads you see In those little boxes inside websites have NOTHING to do with the website, they are targeted based on what other websites you have visited and words you have googled they are mini google pages. So, if you Google Monsanto 50 times then go back to snopes, YOU WILL SEE AN AD for Monsanto. By the looks of it you’ve also been searching about Chevy Cars or car dealers.

    • Doubt if Sean Adl-Tabatabai can even understand that. He’s an anti-vaxxer too, like so, so many other anti-biotechers.

Comments are closed.