True to my red-neck/gamer nature, I too think that Mountain Dew is the best soda pop ever made. Though I am a fan of Classic Green Mountain Dew, I also love Blue Mountain Dew (IT TASTES LIKE BLUE!!!), and Red Mountain Dew kicks fucking ass.
These are my abs:
If you want to bitch about the new Pepsi blog before theyve even posted anything, you should probably do it somewhere else.
Edit-- I forgot Pepsi made Gatorade. Gatorade 03 is mind blowing. A PROTEIN DRINK that tastes like (thick) GATORADE. Amazing. Its hard to find, though.
Edit #2-- Childhood friend just reminded me about a cocktail we named after my hometown that includes Mountain Dew. Mountain Dew + raspberry vodka + peach schnapps. "Its refreshing!" ROFL!!!
- Log in to post comments
Wait, if you mix Red, Green, and Blue Mountain Dew together, do you get the mythical White Mountain Dew, with the power of all the colors of the spectrum?
Nice abs. Not sure what the relevance is to the inherent conflict of interest that a for-profit corporation has in this kind of field, though.
Randall-- Theyve GOT white Mountain Dew! 'White out'! Its one of the new flavors I havent gotten to try yet!
Azkyroth-- What have they posted that is inaccurate or sheer marketing? My post is in response to the knee-jerk 'PEPSI OMFG HFCS MAEKIN BABBIES FAT!' comments found elsewhere on the intrawebz.
RE:"These are my abs"
Any word on when they are finally going to get sunlight in OK?
Sunlight causes cancer, Cain.
I only get my cancer from the coloring in delicious Mountain Dew.
Dude, you can't be that much younger than me. Don't you remember Adam Corolla?
Nectar. Of. The. TARDS.
*insert joke in incredibly poor taste re: those that drink dew in glass short buses naked*
becca, what do you mean "remember"? I listen to his podcast all the time.
I for one welcome our new PepsiCo overlords.
Mmmm, abs...
You can't fool us, we know you are just trying to get in line to be a corporate shill for Big Caffeine. Or at least get a couple of free cases. ;)
Great Family Guy clip.
I'm also reminded of a Simpsons clip I couldn't find, with a flash-forward to the future school:
Coincidentally, that was a flash-forward to 2010.
I agree with you about the knee-jerk reactions. Threatening to quit Sb before a post is even up seems overboard.
And am I the only one who thinks it would be cool to hear about the science going on at Pepsi's R&D dept?
Well, I'm not bitching about it, but I did write the only true and balanced post on the topic. Fair, yet threatening, to keep it interesting. You, on the other hand, are totally Pepsi biased. Just where do you thin that leaves Coke? Where????
Greg-- I am pro-Pepsi. I enjoy many of their products, and I think their Pepsi Refresh project is neato. I dont see why I should treat their blog any differently than if any other blogger said something stupid, or something I liked.
The knee-jerk response of snooty assholes who think that they look more educated or forward-thinking or refined because "they dont drink 'soda' or eat Doritos" is unimpressive. Its simultaneously intellectually lazy and condescending. Because lets be 100% clear here, there has been NOTHING put up on the Pepsi blog except a fucking WELCOME post, and people are acting like idiots. Arrogant idiots.
And Im in Oklahoma. Everything is a Coke, even Pepsi.
Me: "Do you want a Coke?"
Guest: "Why, yes I would!"
Me: "What kind? I have Mountain Dew and Pepsi Max and diet orange."
Guest: "YAY!! MOUNTAIN DEW!!"
I still really wish they'd sell the original formula purple dew they only sell around halloween. dear sweet jesus, i'd knock my kid and my wife out of the way for the last bottle of that
Hey, I subsist on a diet of unadulterated junk food, and I think this is a terrible idea. Doesn't matter that they've only posted one (pretty much content-free) item so far — I would've said this was a bad idea if I had heard about it before they'd posted anything at all (which I didn't).
And I agree with you, Blake! Ive been trying to get more nutrition and plant-genetics bloggers on SciBlogs for years, and my pleas and suggestions have been totally ignored. My idea was a good idea. This isnt, so much.
But in the hierarchy of 'Bad moves made by SciBlogs' I do think this is pretty low on the list and not worth epic temper-tantruming.
Since you like Gatorade, I highly recommend a PowerAde Slush from Sonic.
Since when do SciBlings ever throw an epic fit over something actually worth complaining about?
ERV wrote, abdominawesomally, "I dont see why I should treat their blog any differently than if any other blogger said something stupid, or something I liked"
I'd lean that way if the timing didn't make this seem like part of a PR/lobbying campaign to fend off soda taxes and similar recent government efforts.
Weirdly I just scanned a pic from 1970something with my little sister holding up a can of Mountain Dew. I believe this pic was taken on the top of a mountain in Vermont (though we lived in Montreal).
http://twitpic.com/233nqb
I think Mountain Dew tastes like carbonated Neo Citran... (which is not a good thing btw....)
I am the one without the disguise rocking the tube socks... no shame...
You will pry my Diet Coke (or Pepsi, in a pinch) from my cold fingers -- its the pause that refreshes -- but you're completely missing the point. At its core, this has absolutely nothing to do with elitism over junk food, or your abs, but at the unconscionable blurring of the traditional boundaries between content and advertising.
Sunlight causes cancer, Cain.
I only get my cancer from the coloring in delicious Mountain Dew.
In one of nature's little catch-22's, it also helps prevent cancer. Other than skin cancer, the incidence of others - prostate, bowel, breast, ... - correlates quite strongly with latitude - less at the equator, more and more as you approach the poles. Leading hypothesis is that it's vitamin D production that does the job.
At least skin cancers are relatively easy to catch early.
I've scheduled my last post and e-mailed in my notice.
Even if this isn't the worst management decision ScienceBlogs.com has made, and even if it gets resolved satisfactorily, not having to deal with this fucking shit anymore will be a delicious vacation. If this gets fixed, you'll just have something worse in six months or a year . . . fuck that noise.
The best soda pop ever was Nesbitt's Orange. It's not even close.
Also, best commercial ever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlo_Kdscw_A
@25
Well, that was painfully recursive.
Plus, Half the time they say "orangey" it sounds like "orgy". "Wonderfully orgy orgy good" isn't likely to positively sway my refreshing beverage purchasing decisions...maybe I'm just a prude.
Next on Scienceblogs : Fat Frontiers, the McDonalds blog where
.
With the Heart Foundation tick of approval.
WTF !
This reminds me of Merck and their marketing tool "Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine". Very classy.
Jennifer-- It has a lot to do with food elitism, because that is an accepted theme within the SciBlog community. Go on, try to find a rational comment on Pams kick-ass blog. Learn about GMOs from anti-GMO advocates that dont know anything about GMOs, like Janet. Or learn about how food is REALLY made from our yuppie-turned-gardener, writing opinions about food like shes a scientist. Nooooooobody gives a crap about the other sponsored blogs weve had here, but "PEPSI! WHY NOT GIVE CHILD MOLESTERS A BLOG??"
They also havent posted anything yet, so saying they 'blur the line between content and advertising' July 6/7 2010 is simply not true. They might post something tomorrow that is pure advertising, but they havent now.
Blake-- Actually, we had something worse a year ago, and you didnt quit. Im pretty sure you ignored the situation. You could also ignore the Pepsi blog. *shrug*
Re Rorschach-- See! Not about food elitism at alllll.
No, its not about food elitism.
But the way you say "Look at my abs, nothing wrong with PepsiCo products" comes across as anything from being a bit naive to completely missing the point.
Rorschach-- What point? That people have a twisted view of diet? People think there are BAD foods and GOOD foods, and if you eat a BAD food, then you are a BAD person? Someone pointing out that there are no BAD foods, and you can enjoy any food you like in moderation, which makes people with unhealthy eating habits uncomfortable? Calling a company that makes BAD food BAD makes people with unhealthy eating habits feel better about themselves (even though said company also makes GOOD food)?
Because, for the millionth time, Pepsi Blog hasnt posted shit. There can be no 'point' on conflicts of interest or them misrepresenting scientific research until they do something wrong.
And it IS about food elitism, because you said McDonalds, there, Bub. Not 'Commanders Palace' or 'Daniel'. Unhealthy poor people food is BAD, unhealthy rich people food is GOOD.
ERV:
Not true. People raised something of a ruckus over the Shell sponsored blog (Next Generation Energy). (Not as many closed blogs over it though.) And Shell doesn't make food. (I know, I know Kraft singles taste like they're made by Shell, but really...) And it came on board with Joe Romm, who had a long record of strong science and policy climate articles. But, it lasted about 3 months.
So does blaming companies for obesity. Who cares if they're advertizing? You can ignore them, and if they try to put out some kind of bullshit, tear them apart for it (if they delete your comments, then get pissed).
But, people put it down their own mouths. Most of the time, obesity in adults is the fault of the adult. Childhood obesity is the fault of the parents.
It's kind like this... Tim Minchin - Fat Children: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_ElXYzFX_w
Key lyrics:
It's our own culture that's the problem. We get doggy bags at restaurants because we couldn't finish our meal because it was so large. We drink regular soda at 150-200 calories each, rather than diet. We get coffee with caramel and chocolate and sugar. We use every crank diet in the books rather than just working out and watching what we eat. We play video games to simulate sports instead of just playing sports. I could go on and on over the bad habits a lot of us have.
And maybe science blogs will finally fix some shit with all the money pepsi is paying them to have a blog.
I don't know what commanders palace is but I'm intrigued.
I don't know what that even means.I mentioned McD because they are another company heavily investing in tweaking the public perception of their products, to the point that they managed to get the Australian Heart Foundation to supply some of their meals with ticks of approval.
2 things : It's up to society to regulate how expensive certain foods are, as long as it's cheaper for a family of 4 to eat at McD, or buy salty/sugary PepsiCo products, we won't be getting anywhere with improving nutrition and health.
Also, I think that you forget that not everyone can afford/has the time to jog everyday and go the the gym to work those calories off, especially those "poor people".
You don't get out much, do you ?
I highly doubt it's most of the time.As I said above, if you're a family on a low budget, then buying unhealthy food is the cheapest way to feed your family in too many places today.
Also, to tell the mum of 3 or the factory worker to go jogging after their day is fundamentally ignoring people's everyday life realities.
Unless every post starts with a disclaimer about coming from Pepsi Co., the information on that blog will be indistinguishable from the information from the individuals posting on all the other blogs. This is a problem online as much as it would be if newspapers/magazines didn't distinguish "special advertising sections" from regular news/opinions. It's as much a problem as when those fake corporate news reports (http://www.prwatch.org/fakenews/execsummary) make in on TV without knowing what they are. Readers who don't hang out at SB, and maybe end up there via search or link, will be giving PepsiCo the benefit of the reputation other bloggers here have earned through years of work. As noted, they could anything they woudl here on their own website - it's the reputation that they are buying, and also helping to ruin.
Yes, some people on Scienceblogs have misinformed opinions and might put out information that is not correct, but they don't generally stand to profit from those opinions. And I'm not aware of anyone publicising research for personal profit on the network (books maybe). That changes as soon as Pepsi puts up their first post about something they are researching. Which they will of course be doing, why else would the blog exist? When "doing something wrong" like slanting/misrepresenting/selectively reporting research is something that can be anticipated so readily, why wait until it actually happens?
Or to come at it another way - what is the best-case scenario, realistically, for the PepsiCo blog?
Maybe I'm dense, but I really just don't see what the big fucking deal is. This obviously isn't squelching criticism of Pepsi elsewhere on Sb. And it's not as if someone from Pepsi is secretly writing a blog shilling for their products with subliminal posting.
It's crass, sure. But it's blatantly crass. It's helping to pay the bills around these parts.
I'm reminded of Eddie Izzard's thoughts on house arrest: Pol Pot killed 1.7 million people. At least we know where he is: under house arrest. Just don't go in that fucking house!
If you think this Pepsi blog is bad, don't go to that fucking blog. As far as I can tell, it isn't pretending to be anything other than advertorial. At least not yet. And as far as I can tell, no SciBloggers are being asked to be nice to Pepsi.
So, what am I missing?
Optimus-- You cant avoid visiting the Pepsi Blog any more than you can avoid drinking 10 liters of Pepsi a day, apparently.
But has anybody seen the original Food Frontiers blog, of which the ScienceBlogs sidebar says:
Really, if anybody wants to know about the latest develops in world health with regards to the labelling of Quaker Granola Bites packaging, they should definitley check it out...
I think Isis does a good job of explaining why this is a bad idea in its current format.
The argument you're making - I like Mountain Dew, I'm a good person therefore this blog will be ok is the same argument you rightly reject in the XMRV CFS camp. (Slightly OT - when W was prattling on about how he could seize more power for the executive branch because he was a good person and would never do anything that wasn't pure as the driven snow, my then 7yo slapped his forehead and started ranting "What doesn't he get about balance of powers? Has he even read the constitution? Doesn't he get that it doesn't matter if he's the best person in the world. The next person might not be so nobody nobody nobody should get to do this.")
I don't know what went on behind scenes. I would be less troubled if Seed and Pepsi negotiated a deal where an independent journalist blogged about food research. It's an amazing industry effects us all at least three times a day. Or, as Isis recommended, advertisement is plastered all over the blog.
Without this clarity from the get go, I will always be suspicious of the content of the blog. An by association the content of other blogs on this site. Which would totally suck because I love this site.
Abby, may I ask for a hint, a link, a pretty picture of what happened last year? I will add I usually only read a couple of sciblogs, Dispatches mostly, and sometimes others if the header looks intriguing. However, I rarely ride the "short bus" as you so aptly describe the cadre. Was it something they said or did, or did Sciblogs run a retrospective of the accomplishments of Francis Collins and include Biologos in it?
As for Pepsi, et al, well ummm... so what? Are those who visit sciblogs unable to see through manipulation? Is there a fear that the sweet innocent things that wander in here will be swayed to the dark side, or even worse, to asking for the return of Crystal Pepsi? Mein Gott! Was ist los? Granted I am a crotchety, grumpy, and cynical ol' basterd; it comes with the wisdom and experience accumulated through years in the military, private sector, and now academia. I don't see anything of value in this society, only things that are slightly less distasteful than things I find in the communal refrigerator. It is what it is. If you think you can improve it, good luck. The stupid have reached a critical mass, they will undo anything and everything the the benevolent intelligent attempt to accomplish. The malevolent intelligent recognize that and manipulate the stupid to their ends. Nonetheless, there is hope; a meteor crashing into the planet could eradicate 99% of life.
Missed the point by about a mile there.
Hint : the argument is not about whether it's going to be journalistically poor.As Abbie says, we don't know yet, they haven't written anything !
But we won't be able to trust the information there.They bought advertising space, some is on the ad banners, some comes in the form of this "blog". That's what it boils down to.
Bullshit.
First, 20-40 mintues 2-3 times a week is all you need.
Second, running is free. You don't need a gym, and you can burn 300-500 calories in about 30 minutes depending on your pace and current weight. So, three times a week, that'll save you about 1/2 lb in calories per week. You'd lose 10 lbs by Christmas if you started now, and you wouldn't even need to change your eating habits.
Third, if you can't find 30 minutes 2-3 times a week, you must have a ridiculously busy life because I work 40-50 hours per week and I have two grad school classes and I can find the time to go at least twice a week.
I just don't buy it.
People go to McD's because they're LAZY, NOT because it's cheap.
Four people at McD's is going to be about $16-20 if everyone gets only items from the $1 menu.
For $15 you could go to a grocery store and get broccoli, cheese, chicken, and crackers and whip up a broccoli casorole for 4.
For $10 you could get ground beef, corn, and potatoes (or tater tots even) to make sheperd's pie for 6 people.
For $10 you could get chicken, green beans, potatoes, and a little packet of the powdered italian spices (the stuff to make your own salad dressing with) to make italian chicken for 4.
For $10 you can get noddles and sauce, garlic bread, and a side of whatever vegetable you want to make spaghetti, or fettucini alfredo, or whatever for 4 people.
Why do people always make the argument that McD's is cheaper? It's just a flat out lie.
Between work and school, no, I don't. When I do go out, it's usually to jog before coming back home to study some more.
See my post at @41 for the recipes of healthier and cheaper solutions. I'll be glad to provide the entire recipe later for quantities, cooking times, etc if anyone's interested.
My mom is a mom of five kids with an age range of 9 years between oldest and youngest, who worked a 50 hour week, and still found time to go power walking with the other ladies in the neighborhood.
FLAT OUT BULLSHIT.
If you're a factory worker/construction worker etc, doing hard labor, you don't need to work out. You get your workout at work. If you do that and you're fat, you need an eating habit change, not a exercise change.
I really think you're mixing up could do it, with too lazy to do it.
ERV, I agree with most of what you said, but we can at the very least acknowledge that there is a conflict of interest with the blog. Judging the content as false, useless, etc. is premature. They may write well informed science posts, they may not. I can say one thing, if there was any community that I'd want a blog that has conflicts of interest, it'd be one where scrutiny would be applied and one where the bloggers wouldn't be running to the hills looking for a new home, but rather using that time an energy to scrutinize the new blog... with science!
If that's the point, I didn't miss it. Not by a mile, not by an inch. I assume I won't be able to trust a word written there. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my assumption. The thing is, though, this is the reality we live in now. Conventional advertising is dying. Every publication is scrambling to make money, sometimes in creative ways and sometimes by grasping at straws. If this weren't so out in the open, so transparently corporate, that would be one thing. But they may as well have "This is a glorified advertisement" pasted on the top of the blog, as far as I'm concerned. Stop patting yourself on the back for discovering a conflict of interest, Captain Obvious. Hell, the name of the blog may as well be "Conflict of Interest."
Again, if you don't like it, don't read it. I certainly won't. But if it even slightly contributes to keeping blogs like Abbie's up and running, I'm all for it. Hell, I might click on a headline here or there just to contribute a penny or two to the pot.
Meh. I don't uncritically swallow everything from elsewhere on Sb. Why is PepsiBlog distinguishable in that respect? And I certainly don't insist, for example, that all the medical bloggers preface each post with their "I'm a doctor, but this isn't medical advice" disclaimers or that pretty much any blogger starts every post with the "this is personal opinion, and does not represent my workplace" disclaimer. For a place that supposedly promotes critical thinking, it seems a lot of the bloggers here don't much trust their readership in that regard
I don't need to wait for more posts to appear; the check they wrote speaks louder than words.
I've made plenty of bad judgement calls during my time blogging. That doesn't mean I have to screw up again this time.
I think we just wait until WPI buys Judy Mikovits the "XMRV blog by Scienceblog", for more extended coverage on the field of retroviruses.
ERV needs tannings!!1one!
And another thing...(or two or three.)
First, it's not the worst thing that Sciblogs could do, they could have brought back Mooney and Kirschenbaum. (The Colgate Twins as Ophelia Benson describes them, or MooneyTits, the moniker Abby bestowed upon them.)
Second, that offending blog moderates comments. Yet unlike another blog on Sciblogs that moderates comments and is oh so special, I see that contrary, even uncivil, comments make it through. Now maybe moderation was just turned on, and those negative comments antedate the moderation; nevertheless, the comments were not scrubbed minty clean to remove offending goo...
Finally, call me cynical but ya think this might be another move by SciBlogs to up the traffic ante by starting yet another faux outrage storm. Is there an internet tradition I am not aware of that describes this behavior? Astroturfing the Sciblogs perhaps?
I hate Dew Code Red, but the Black Dew and Original Dew (and Dew Throwback) are indeed awesome. Sadly I drink very little Dew any more as it plays merry hob with my stomach, and I can't stand Pepsi Cola, being a Coca-Cola addict.
Back to ad-blogging wankery, if scienceblogs wants to sell advertising space to Pepsi, so be it. At least this way it's better than annoying flash pop-up ads because I don't even have to look at it. I can be forever untarnished with their spew of PR spin and sciencey-propaganda.
If SciBlogs can host Nesbitt without losing credibility, what is a corporate "blog" going to do to it? Seriously, who cares. I like Pepsi (drink it almost exclusively), but I probably won't read the blog, and if I do, I'll judge it as critically as I do every other blog. Reading some of these posts makes me think of whiny kids - and since I teach High School, I think have a good grasp of what I'm saying there. I honestly don't think of ScienceBlogs as an entity, just a place where some bloggers reside, some of whom I respect and read, others who I think are full of it. I just can't see why this is such a big deal, but if the kids want to take their ball and go to a new home, so what? I may go follow some, but others will drop off my combined feed, so I won't waste time looking them up.
Just seems like a lot of ado over nothing.
#42
"But we won't be able to trust the information there.They bought advertising space, some is on the ad banners, some comes in the form of this "blog". That's what it boils down to."
Point me to a place where the information is fresh and pure. I'll bookmark it.
Rorschach, what is this âtrustâ you are talking about. I don't âtrustâ anything I read from any source, not newspapers, not blogs, not textbooks, not even peer review journals. If you were a scientist, you would not âtrustâ anything you read either.
âTrustâ is not a concept that is compatible with science. If you can't read something and evaluate it without using âtrustâ, then you are not a scientist and I certainly can't âtrustâ your judgment about scientific matters.
If you can't read something by someone with an agenda and evaluate it on its scientific merit, then you should give up being a scientist and stop voting because you are too likely to be duped by people who's agendas you agree with.
Erv is exactly right. There are no âbadâ foods, there are only âbad lifestylesâ. Why people choose to live and eat following a âbad lifestyleâ is a good scientific question that has not been asked. I happen to think that choosing to eat âbadâ food is a âfeatureâ. One of the most important aspects of physiology is auto-regulation of physiology. All the long term diet studies which show a very robust association of eating a âcrappy dietâ with having crappy health are from diets that are self-selected. All the long term diet studies looking at supplemental nutrients, vitamins, antioxidants, etc. have shown essentially no, or slight negative health effects.
If supplemental nutrients show no improvement in health, then health is not dependent on incremental levels of those nutrients. I know that the standard dogma is then ânutrients from good food are goodâ and ânutrients from supplements are uselessâ. Huh? Nutrients are nutrients. The same chemical from food or from a pill will have the same physiological effects when consumed. To assert otherwise is an extraordinary claim and should require extraordinary evidence. So far, there is not even ordinary evidence. There is no evidence at all. The only data is from self-selected diets. The data that people who self-select a diet rich in âhealthyâ foods are healthy and that people who self-select a diet rich in âunhealthyâ foods are unhealthy is robust. But that data is not blinded or controlled.
My hypothesis is that healthy people self-select a diet rich in antioxidants and that people who are unhealthy self-select a diet low in antioxidants. My rationale for this is that a state of oxidative stress is a controlled physiological state. Physiology regulates the state of oxidative stress to achieve certain physiological tasks, and that there are multiple physiological control mechanisms that facilitate the regulation of the appropriate oxidative stress setpoint, and that nutritive quantities of antioxidants do not determine the oxidative stress setpoint. Free radicals like superoxide are ideal signaling molecules and physiology uses them a lot. Using free radicals as a singling pathway requires a background level of antioxidants appropriate to that signaling use (to give them the right lifetime and diffusion distance). Too high a level of antioxidants would be inconsistent with using free radicals as a signaling mechanism because they would not have the appropriate lifetime or diffusion distance.
It is pretty clear that if physiology is going to use free radicals as signaling molecules, then physiology has to set the appropriate background level of antioxidants. That is raise the level when it is too low, and lower it when it is too high. When the level is too high, the body can destroy the excess by generating more superoxide, which physiology has unlimited capacity to do, Of course there is a metabolic cost to destroying antioxidants by generating excess superoxide, both in the substrates lost (O2 and reducing equivalents) and also the extra damage that the excess superoxide does in the mean time.
I suspect this metabolic cost is the reason that in the large double-blind placebo controlled studies of supplemental antioxidants the antioxidant leg usually fares slightly worse than the placebo group.
When you are under âstressâ, your body invokes a state of oxidative stress. Presumably that state of oxidative stress produced by a higher oxidative stress setpoint adjusts every physiological parameter that affects oxidative stress. Since organisms do vary their diet so as to match dietary intake to metabolic needs, presumably under stress, organisms would reduce intake of antioxidants to reduce the need to destroy any excess metabolically.
The hypothesis that a state of bad health causes the consumption of a bad diet is then seen to be compatible with both the large diet studies showing an association of good health with a good diet, and also with the large studies showing that supplemental antioxidants have no or slightly negative effects on health.
My preference is to tentatively adopt the hypothesis which explains more of the data. Since the bad health causes bad diet explains more of the data, that is the one that I tentatively accept. I don't "trust" that diet causes bad health because to my mind, looking at all the data doesn't support it.
I AM TOTALLY AGAINST THE NEW PEPSI BLOG
...unless they also post pictures of erv's abs, in which case they are cool.
Jesus those comments make my ass hurt.
To wit:
"A PepsiCo blog completely undermines the integrity of ScienceBlogs as an entity. This was supposed to be the island of nearly pure science love and discussion...."
Really? Really???
Half of the blogs on this hosting site are being run by people who want to gibber about how their ugly sprog managed to use the toilet that morning or how they are trapped on their couch by the patriarchal military industrial complex as part of a plot to rape their eyeballs with commercials for kitchen appliances.
The reason those blogs are popular is that they don't require any acumen at all. If you can turn over in bed unassisted you can offer an opinion on "Which blouse should you wear to a job interview?". They are on scienceblogs because the people who run them purport to be or have been scientists but they are all about the lowest common denominator and that's their hit quota.
Yet these are Blagaratti that are always first in line to try and dictate content, censor other bloggers, chill speech, crow over their stats and pick a fight as a pretense to keep their numbers up.
Since most of science is funded by private industry why not let a company that spends billions on R&D talk?
What the hell are they afraid of?
Nobody bitches about adjunct assistant part time community college faculty hawking their books or their friend's books on how to make a toilet out of a five gallon bucket and live off of bark and dirt. The Science Journalists get to peddle their shitty 'communication' seminars.
One of the best things about Pam's blog is Ewan, who actually works in R&D for Monsanto. It is refreshing to have somebody who works for "the devil" explain what's up instead of reading recycled Mike Pollan quotes.
Industry is what has been missing.
Pepsico has a 100% rating and Indra Nooyi rocks!
She makes food and drinks with sugar, salt and fat in them.
So what. So did your granny stupid. Your dumb ideas, your pudgy rug rats and your love handles are your problem, not Pepsi's and not mine.
Crap I'm mad. I'm going to Pop's for lunch tomorrow.
http://www.pops66.com/28.0.html
I'm gonna get a loaded prime steak burger and a Dublin Dr. Pepper then for dessert I'm going to pound a couple of luddite frutarians into the ground with my big fat fists.
P.S. Do you think Celestial Seasonings Inc. or Treehugger would be dealing with this flak?
You have got to be kidding me.
Strawman.I didn't say it was.
Relevance of this statement wrt the PepsiCo topic, or being exposed to excess amounts of sugar/salt/crap in foods ? And how do you measure, or define health btw ?
Good health is associated with a good diet ? I'm shocked I tell you ! And of course then the reverse assumption has to be true as well ! How one can post such nonsense and still expect to be taken seriously is frankly beyond me.
Speaking only for myself, I'd be just as irritated. I'd hazard a guess that several, but probably not all, of the bloggers who have gotten pissed off would be saying pretty much what they're saying now. (Just because lots of people are upset doesn't mean that I agree with everything all of them have said.)
[pauses to refill his soda glass]
I wouldn't mind a blog written by somebody who happens to work at ConHighFructoseCo. I mean, SB has (right now) a blog by somebody at Google.
Blake, you said: "I've made plenty of bad judgement calls during my time blogging. That doesn't mean I have to screw up again this time."
and elsewhere (WCU): "What I can say with some confidence is that, given the way this was managed, we'll see more of the same."
Why do you think you can learn from your mistakes, but the Overlords(tm) can't?
I agree with you here Rorschach. There are definitely bad foods, though I would also say that most "bad" foods won't hurt you that much in moderation.
The "bad lifestyle" is eating the "bad" foods way too much.
Blake Stacey@#59
"Speaking only for myself, I'd be just as irritated."
Are you representing you are a purist?
How does that jibe with statements to the effect that you moved to science blogs for the money and you use Scienceblogs to promote your self published fiction?
I'm not trying to be confrontational, your Blog is consistently good with interesting content but I don't comment because I usually agree with you.
Is it just timing or do you actually have a dog in this fight?
This is a repeat of my comment on Greg Laden's blog. I tried to post some of it on the Food Frontiers site but my comment was never approved. Go figure.
.............................
"In the mean time, let's keep an eye on it and see what interesting things develop." (Greg Laden)
Yeah, and especially notice the crappy -- and inevitable -- side effects.
The sweet guy handling the blog is already censoring comments deemed, in his loving corporate opinion, to be "profane" or "defamatory."
I can say FUCK here. PZ can create Crackergate on Pharyngula.
By contrast, I'll bet you PepsiCo already has a policy in place for censoring comments, deleting comments, and permanently banning people who say things they don't want said there. Itâs a no-brainer to say there will be no controversial content.
It won't end there. The financial pressure and corporate control will leak out from Food Frontiers and taint the rest of ScienceBlogs.
It will also drive a wedge between the commenting public. I'm already seeing comments -- yours among them -- asking the equivalent of "let's all keep an open mind and welcome this poor, downtrodden multi-billion dollar corporations into our midst."
Theyâve found a way to use open-mindedness as a corporate weapon. And donât think some bright young Karl Rove hasnât brought up the point in exactly those terms.
I come here for the science, and the pro-science, pro-reason opinion, not the soda.
As to your comments about other bloggers, this is not some blogger partially funded by PepsiCo. THIS IS PepsiCo. This is PepsiCo advertising.
Jeezus, sometimes it seems that every frickin' flat surface in the world is covered with advertising from some goddam corporation. Certainly I long ago recognized that TV is really about advertising, and EVERYTHING else on there is the sweet bait to draw in the viewers.
This is not some accident. It's ... hell, it would be moronic to assume that it was anything BUT the end result of decades of deliberate effort by corporate advertisers.
I think you're wrong, Greg. You're not thinking this through.
What weâre witnessing is not some fluffy good-willed experiment, it's a shameless, cynical, heavily-bankrolled effort to take control of whatever piece of ScienceBlogs they can get, up to and including the entire damned thing, to deliver those readers into the hands of PepsiCo.
If enough people like you roll over to have their tummies rubbed, THEY'LL GET IT.
I comment on the ABC News site fairly often. About half the time, my comments get deleted, and I have never yet figured out just why. You can post a strong on-topic, profanity-free opinion about George Bush and have it vanish the same day, or never get posted. Iâm assuming some reader flags it as âinappropriateâ and ABC, just to be on the safe side, deletes it.
Ten years from now, ScienceBlogs will be a very different place from what it is now, a place exactly like ABC News. Critics will say it has âmaturedâ â all the loud, random, argumentative content will be controlled by editors hired to shepherd the formerly-troublesome bloggers into safe corporate channels, and all the annoying commenters will be required to follow strict rules of staying on topic and using âpoliteâ language.
The camel's nose is in the tent.
"yuppie-turned-gardener, writing opinions about food like shes a scientist"
Gee, I would have said she writes about food like she's a gardener and cook. Are those who don't have a pee-aitch-dee not allowed to express any kind of opinions about what is good food, as if people hadn't been cooking and eating for a hundred thousand years before the invention of "nutrition science"?
Ten years from now, ScienceBlogs will be a very different place from what it is now, a place exactly like ABC News. Critics will say it has âmaturedâ â all the loud, random, argumentative content will be controlled by editors hired to shepherd the formerly-troublesome bloggers into safe corporate channels, and all the annoying commenters will be required to follow strict rules of staying on topic and using âpoliteâ language.
The camel's nose is in the tent.
I'll take paranoid tinfoil hat conspiracy theories for 1000, Alex.
Well, Hank's complaints about the new Pepsi blog on the Pharyngula thread included the following:
"And what does "profane" cover? Does that mean I won't be able to say ...That I think Islam is the worst thing to happen to civilization since the Inquisition? During next year's Everybody Draw Mohammad Day, will I be able to post "Hey, everybody, here's a link to my picture of Mohammad on a pig's butt!"?"
Spoken like a man likely to own a chapeau courtesy of Reynolds Wrap.
Rorschach, that there is an association between a good diet and good health is data. Association does not prove causation. Which is cause and which is effect is a hypothesis. The hypothesis that good health follows from eating a good diet has not been tested experimentally. All long term diet experiments have been done using self-selected diets. The long term diet experiments have tested the hypothesis that people who self-select a good diet are healthy and that people who self-select a bad diet are unhealthy.
How do you explain the data that supplemental antioxidants don't improve health? That nutrients from healthy foods are magically good as well as being magically delicious? And that nutrients from pills are magically bad?
I raised the issue because your hypothesis that there are âbadâ foods and that eating âbadâ foods explains why people who eat âbadâ foods are unhealthy. The hypothesis that people who are unhealthy choose to eat âbadâ foods actually fits the data better.
I understand you don't want to consider the idea that people in bad health choose to eat âbadâ food. Do you have any data to support your contention that excess sugar is bad? Untangling cause and effect in complex systems is difficult.
Starch gets cleaved to glucose and is absorbed as glucose. Why is it that glucose from sugar is bad but glucose from starch is good? Or is that doubleplusgood?
You don't have to respond. I appreciate you want to treat this as an exercise in rhetoric, an opportunity to win an argument rather than try and understand the data and what scientific conclusions can be drawn from it.
I'm not running a business; they are. Saying more would compromise the confidentiality of messages exchanged behind the scenes.
Getting a small amount of extra pocket change each month — it's never been more than that, and I never seriously thought it would be — is a nice side benefit for an amusing hobby. I certainly won't miss the "second prize in a beauty contest" amount of cash my trickle of traffic brought me. I had other reasons to move over here, among them my desire to make SB a better place to discuss mathematics and physics. I was told that LaTeX support was on the agenda, for example, and I figured that I could be more effective working on the inside to make that happen. The promise that equation typesetting was on its way was actually what overcame my reluctance to give up my own WordPress platform. (Said LaTeX support never materialized, by the way, despite requests and discussions behind the scenes.)
Oh, I'm frustrated with the way Management has behaved, all right. I honestly think this was a bad idea, and that it was made epically worse in the execution. However, as I said in my penultimate blog post, I've had other reasons to lose enthusiasm over the past several months. This incident pushed me over the line from posting once or twice a month to not posting at all. Others, who perhaps have a greater psychological investment in their blogs, can go on hiatus, can "wait and see" before they make their decision. I have no reason to wait.
I also love Mountain Dew. (I am a recent redneck convert, having just moved to WV.)
I think ScienceBlogs should be more upfront about the flow of money in their relationship with PepsiCo, and that they risk compromising their current public image if they don't.
But I agree that there is also a lot of food elitism/snobbery floating around right now, and it's getting ugly.
That is all.
Update: Adam Bly's e-mail has been posted at the Grauniad web site. It's not as bad as it could have been, but it misses the point in enough places that I have no high expectations for future managerial decisions.
Enough of this.
Commander's Palace is always vaut un detour...though Galatoire's has more atmosphere.
But...soda? pop? Sorry, but any soft drink is a 'coke', as in 'want a coke?' 'sure, bring me a Mountain Dew'.
And just as a note... classic Mountain Dew pairs well with chili dogs...
Refreshing, this fresh air of a post and your responses in the comments.
I was beginning to wonder, what is the real "tragedy" of the Pepsico/ScienceBlogs lovechild. The blog itself, the horribly mismanaged roll out of the blog or the knee-jerk emotional outraged reactions by so many to the mere presence of the tainted blog.
I'm sure the Catholic Church can be of help...
daedalus2u: "I understand you don't want to consider the idea that people in bad health choose to eat âbadâ food."
Leaving aside the issue of Rorschach's intellectual desires, on which I will not presume to speculate, your hypothesis seems pretty culture-specific. We in America can choose to eat anything from corn-fed burgers and soda to sushi to Ethiopian food. Historically, and to this day in many places, you would eat mostly the cuisine that your family and culture taught you to prefer, which has a great deal to do with what foods are widely available in your culture's part of the world. If you grew up in Japan, you would eat rice; if you grew up in Mexico, you would eat corn. Not vice versa.
When groups of people switch diets, their health often changes. If they switch from dependence upon a single grain to a more diverse diet, they get larger and healthier. Presumably you would not dispute that the diet is the causative factor there. Native Americans in the southwest did not switch from eating mesquite and cactus to eating processed foods because they had suffered a sudden epidemic of spontaneous obesity and diabetes which altered their tastes in food. Likewise, it's hard to imagine that women of Japanese ancestry who moved here, started eating our diet, and then had increased breast cancer rates were led to engage in those activities by some genetic mechanism that also destined them to get breast cancer.
East Asians eating traditional diets, OTOH, have very high rates of stomach cancer. There is some evidence that excessive consumption of pickled vegetables is a causative factor. Do you think that that is something they should consider as a public health issue? Or would you tell them not to worry about it because those who eat the most pickles are probably led to do it by the fact that they are inherently unhealthy people and therefore more likely to get cancer one day? And then what does make them such unhealthy people? One imagines it must be an environmental factor, not genetic, since the stomach cancer risk drops in Asian-Americans.
"...though Galatoire's has more atmosphere.
and trout almondine.
So far one physicist who was packing it in anyway and a physiologist but the vast majority seem to be free lance Science Journalists.
Maybe the Colgate twins should get some blankets, donuts and put coffee on over at Discover blogs.
Is anybody keeping a list?
Thank you, Abbie, for actually keeping this in perspective. It is amazing to me that people who would say that science should stand or fall on it's own merits, are completely losing their shit before even a single post has been put up.
Damn it I'm supposed to be working on a manuscript and I've been completely distracted by the train wreck here. I'm still amazed (well, not really) that some very woo-ful statements are being given a free pass on certain blogs because the target is a big evil corporation.
ERV,
I was beginning to think you knew what you were talking about. And then I read about your favorite flavors of Mountain Dew, which did not include Live Wire. Live Wire is simply the best dew flavor.
They've put a banner saying "Advertorial" on the Food Frontiers blog. Plus it now says "PepsiCo" in at least 3 different places.
Good enough for me.
I think some of those who are leaving were on the point of leaving anyway.
Dewey, many things change when people migrate from the undeveloped world to the developed world. Diet is only one of them. Why do you assume that it is changes in diet that cause all of the changes in health? My own research suggests that changes in bathing practices and changes in the composition of skin bacteria have a significant effect, and one that has not been looked at in any systematic way.
In many undeveloped countries, people in cities have health-profiles that approach those of western countries while the rural poor retain the traditional health profile. There may be effects of diet, but studies seem to indicate increased consumption of vegetables and fresh fruit along with a worsening health profile.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/10/272
There is likely changes in exposure to infectious agents. There are many changes. Why pick diet as the one true cause of everything? Until there is data that specifically excludes other things, they are still potential mechanisms for the change in health in the rural to urban transition.
Just wanted to stop in and say thank goodness someone has some sense - after reading Orac and PZ today I thought I was way off or something. Coming from an advertising field the simple fact of life is you can't always have super-exact advertising that only advertises the three things you like to purchase.
I understand the wariness, but not the immediate revulsion and I'm glad someone on SB is keeping her head about her and not leaving the whole danged site in a huff.
daedalus2u writes: "Why do you assume that it is changes in diet that cause all of the changes in health?... Why pick diet as the one true cause of everything?"
Well, this is the type of logical fallacy known as a "straw man." Neither I nor your original opponent said that diet was the sole cause of any, much less all, of the disproportionately Western degenerative diseases. It's all too convenient for some to caricature anyone who disagrees with them as believing in some One True Cause of All Disease, as such people can simply be dismissed with a sneer - but this is a particularly strange fallacy coming from you, who do seem to believe NO has something to do with just about every disease and even complex behaviors.
As you know, it is impossible to do lifelong controlled trials on humans. However, there is considerable evidence from all possible types of research, including epidemiological studies, animal studies, and studies of molecular-level bioactivities, to support the hypothesis that diet is relevant to health. Certainly, there is more evidence for a link of diet to cancer than for the idiosyncratic hypothesis you proffer above, that internal cancers might be caused by changes in skin flora due to bathing practices. If you have published research to support that hypothesis, let me know where it is and I'll read it - but I'll also want to see another research group confirm it, as its prior plausibility seems low to me.
Certainly, diet is not the only disease-related factor that changes with time and culture. Those poor people you mention who give up subsistence agriculture to move to a city may get more fruit and vegetables, but with that they may also get more red meat, alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs, not to mention filthy air, toxic workplaces, and less exercise. All of these are admitted, except by corporate interests and cranks, to have potential health downsides. The likely reason why many health-conscious people seem to you to discuss diet so frequently is that, for the more fortunate among us, it is mostly under individual control. I can't change the fact that my home town has heavily polluted air, or zoning laws and crazy drivers that often make it hard to walk or bicycle; but I can change what I shove into my face. Few people want to sit and fret about the potential health risks of an environmental factor that they see no means of escaping or mitigating.
i need to get to the point where i can post abs pictures too. tx for the inspiration.
Okay, as near as I can tell that's three scientists gone (mostly because they were going to quit anyway), four self proclaimed 'science writers' gone and about five bloggers are not going to write..... until they decide to write....whatever the hell that means.
Everybody else is going to bitch their heads off until they are distracted by something shiny.
Bravo snowflakes.
Stick it to the man.
I would like to welcome Food Frontiers to the Science Blog. Like all consumers, I desire more wholesome and enjoyable foods and beverages. I eagerly anticipate to hear how Pepsico's dazzling array of healthful products can improve health outcomes around the world.
Look forward to the day when ERV starts to talk about how divine the crawfish is in New Orleans thanks to BP's oil spill.
Check out comments 65 and 66, consecutive comments by "me" and "dewey" accusing me, based on my comments about how this will play out, of being a tinfoil-hat wearer.
Heh. Since they already threw down the gauntlet, I'll live up to it:
Given the recent secrecy of BP about spill and cleanup sites, and apparent co-opting of local police departments to keep reporters away, does anyone older than 12 believe that a big corporation is even capable of valuing honesty, fair play and full public disclosure above profits?
And if a corporation, oh, let's say PepsiCo, just as an example, felt they had to hire a few sockpuppet hecklers to make fun of people who raise legitimate and unflattering points, do any of us think they'd hesitate for more than a few picoseconds?
Dewey, I hope you're at least getting a couple of good wool socks out if it, and I hope they aren't making you sew on your own button eyes.
Nice abs, Abbie, but I think you're really missing the point here. As Isis pointed out, she's done work for Big Pharma, and is willing to admit that it deserves greater scrutiny than her independent work. Given the attitudes of the junkfood industry (they really aren't that much better than Big Tobacco), the people taking offense have good reason to. Seed screwed up.
Where have I see this pattern of flounce behaviour before, hrmmm oh that's right Fandoms.
dewey, you don't seem to understand the concept of prior plausibility. That you have a high level of personal incredulity is not equivalent to something having a low prior plausibility.
There was a good post over at SBM about prior plausibility.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4238
fuck, I'm on the wrong side of this issue.
Or at least, not on the same side as you, ERV.
Perhaps for different reasons as PAL and Orac (actually, given what I've seen them write, I should say so)
This is mostly a philosophical difference.
You said, "There can be no 'point' on conflicts of interest or them misrepresenting scientific research until they do something wrong."
That's just not true; that's not what conflict of interest means.
Conflict of interest does not mean that they've done anything wrong - often they do not. Philosophically, (and I'm mostly sure this is an actionable legal definition), a conflict of interest is purely the appearance of conflict -- even if they are 100% legit and sincere. Usually there is no problem if they are fully disclosed. It appears that there first post would constitute this - but this isn't on the side bar, it's their first post, and will / could eventually be buried. No huge "buyer beware" sign.
To some extent, the details regarding conflict have been hashed above, but I wanted to state them as clearly as possible to explain my own position, here.
Think about when you submit a journal article - stating that there is a conflict does not mean that the article is rejected out of hand, it means that the reader has a right to know that a profit motive exists. This does not mean that they're actively trying to deceive you. But they could.. or someone could be sloppy or something altogether different - speculate as you may wish. The point is, in scientific literature, the reviewers, knowing of conflict, can be skeptical and vet the research during review.
But here, they are only saying that the editorial content is reviewed. Really, though, this isn't exactly peer review. And for a website that makes use of the moniker "scienceblogs," it would be good if we knew that the science being posted wasn't just smoke up our asses. Ultimately, if it's the company's own blog, then they could host it elsewhere, or have a third party with relevant background review the content.
Otherwise I'm just not sure it belongs on this site.
I understand what you're saying, and I'll also be watching the site to see what gets posted - but as to whether this belongs on a blog about communicating science to layman... tough one... yeah, still don't agree =(
Can we still have a LAN party and drink blue Mountain Dew?
I know my post is too long - I'll understand if I get a tl;dr.
Reading some of the comments on Food Frontiers has gotten a song stuck in my head...
And in between
Sips of Coke
He told me that
He thought
We were sellin' out,
Layin' down,
Suckin' up
To the man.
Well now I've got some
A-dvice for you, little buddy.
Before you point the finger
You should know that
I'm the man,
And if I'm the man,
Then you're the man, and
He's the man as well so you can
Point that fuckin' finger up your ass.
Thank you tool, for yet another insightful lyric. :|
ERV, thanks for being one of the minority to offer some measure in the face of the howling mob.
Do I think Pepsi could be up to no good? Do past corporate practices suggest they could be up to no good? Could they sincerely want to share their food science? I have no idea, but I'm willing to entertain this endeavor to find out. It seems kind of ignorant to try and shut this thing down before it even gets off the ground based on nothing more than broad anti-corporate sentiment.
I think caution and scrutiny are in order, but screaming bloody murder and fleeing in protest is really over the top. To me, the temper tantrums of so many writers on SB lowered my opinions of them more than Pepsi or SB. I was under the impression science was about evidence, caution, and thorough analysis before expressing conclusions.
Jesus on a fucking pogo stick.
I have not seen this kind of moronic panic attack since...no, never. even worse, it's a dataless panic attack being run by a group of people who normally base opinions on you know, data.
Keep an eye on the blog, and if the ACTUAL POSTS are problematic, then RESPOND like fucking grownups to the ACTUAL PROBLEM.
This kind of handwaving, i expect from tweens arguing Team Edward v. Team Jacob. But from scientists?
it's rather appalling.
snerk...and of course, now mr. OMGCORPORATESHILL Orac is moderating comments on his post about it.
Wasn't that what people were complaining about the pepsi blog doing?
Why yes. yes it was. but i'm sure this is completelydifferOWWWW...shit. i sprung my sarcasm organs.
I heard a rumor that ScienceBlogs LLC is a corporation. Can you confirm that? Also, I heard that sitting around staring at your computer screen consumes very few calories and so makes you obese, leading to death and stuff. Can you confirm that? Also, I heard that this ScienceBlogs corporation makes money only by *encouraging* people to sit around staring at their computer screens. Can you confirm this?
If all of these are true, then Abbie I have to ask you: How can you live with yourself enabling corporate profiting from the obesification of your loyal readers? Huh?
Oh, gods, conflict of interest isn't that big a problem as long as it is explicitly stated. That blog is stating it. There's no reason for confusion. Pepsiblog can be good, bad or whatever... but we ALL know that whatever it says is to be taken with a grain of salt.
I really don't see what the big deal is.
And as has been said before... if you don't like it, don't read it.
Well, I tried to comment on Food Frontiers, and my comment never made it through moderation. Can anyone tell me what's wrong with the following (yes, I saved it, just in case it didn't go through - I was replying to another comment also):
@Onkel Bob (136): I don't know if I will fall under your moderates or not. While I don't really think that a corporation should be included in Sciblogs, I am willing to withhold judgement as to the content of the blog until they have at least 1 more post.
I am hoping they are written as well as video, though.
I almost never click on videos as I'd rather read then watch a video.
As far as PepsiCo being the Fruit Of All Evil: well, I disagree with that.
People are responsible for their food choices.
PepsiCo is not dragging people off the street forcing them to buy their products.
I happen to enjoy some of their subsidiaries (I admit I like Taco Bell but prefer Popeye's over KFC).
I will purchase convenience foods when I need them.
So, as for now, I'll wait and see how things go.
To be honest, I doubt I'll click on their blog often unless they post things that interest me. We shall see..
@john c welch #95
My comments on oracs blog went through without moderation. if you include more than 2 links, a name on the blacklist (bensmyson, happeh + ?) or f-bombs you end up in the moderation queue. There's probably other things that get you caught by it.
@hank fox #87
I almost over-reacted to your post glad i reread it and noticed the first paragraph :p
Looks like the best bloggers are quitting SB. Very happy about it. None of the bloggers who have quit (or are going to) are known for being pseudoscientific cranks. Abby good as you are (if not brilliant) at your work, you are politically naive. All the best.
Well, I have six pack abs, too, and I agree with those who think this is a terrible decision. See john Rennie's post on this
http://johnrennie.net/2010/07/07/teetering-chinese-wall-falls-on-scienc…
Hank - If I were a Pepsi employee, would I respond to your libelous accusation by telling you to go screw yourself? Go screw yourself. It so happens that I agree with you 100% on the Pepsi issue; however, I also think that someone who sees any nutrition blog as a suitable forum to express his hatred of Muslims is probably someone who has gone off his psychiatric meds.
daedalus2u - Ah, the ol' "don't seem to understand" rebuttal. Prior plausibility is not and cannot be a totally objective measure, and no matter what they may say on SBM, it's pretty obvious that most people who heavily employ the concept do downgrade the plausibility of hypotheses they personally dislike. For me, assuming that there were no prior research on, say, the etiology of colon cancer, it would be MUCH more plausible that diet is relevant than that skin bacteria are. What one eats actually contacts the colon on a daily basis, after all. Of course, if there were solid peer-reviewed research supporting the skin-bacteria hypothesis, I would have to start taking it seriously no matter how surprising I found it. Feel free to give a few citations if such research has actually been published.
Dewey, you do realize you are not talking about prior plausibility of a new idea, you are talking about something generally recognized as a well developed mainstream idea. I assume you do realize those are two very different things?
If you read the SBM post, it is clear that every correct idea can never actually have a low prior plausibility. If a new idea that is shown to be correct was thought to have a low prior plausibility, the problem is in the way that the incorrect prior plausibility was calculated. The problem is not with the new idea.
That you don't understand how prior plausibility works is your issue not mine. That most scientists don't understand how it works is unfortunate and greatly slows the pace of scientific progress because good ideas can't get funding because of the subjective misjudgments of grant reviewers.
Pepsi's blog is gone. SB took notice of the protests and pulled it down. Good.
daeddalus2u,
Okay, I think you have spent sufficient time and words on how well you understand prior plausibility. But, instead of taking off on another irrelevant (to the main topic)tangent, how about answering the fucking question that dewey asked? Which is directly related to the argument you two are having.
Are you trying to hide something? Is it so important to you to be seen as the winner that it doesn't matter to you whether your claims are reasonably well supported? Don't worry, only a twit would think bad of you if there are currently no published papers supporting your hypothesis.
Whitlock DR, Feelisch M. Soil Bacteria, Nitrite, and the Skin. In: The Hygiene Hypothesis and Darwinian
Medicine (Rook GAW, ed.), Birkhaeuser Publishing, Basel, 2009
http://www.springer.com/birkhauser/biosciences/book/978-3-7643-8902-4?d…
Screw you guys, I want to talk about the awfulness of every new Dew Flavor (except Black)!
"every correct idea can never actually have a low prior plausibility" - Well, that's just ridiculous. You seem to envision plausibility as a black-and-white issue where "low prior plausibility" means "impossible to be true" and hence really "no prior plausibility." If you treat small and zero values as identical in practice, any claim that you are "calculating" is problematic. And how many hypotheses that we now think are true or possibly true would have been evaluated by reputable scholars, at some point in the past, as being extremely unlikely given the available knowledge at that time? Probably quite a few. Apparently the error in the the way in which they would have "calculated" plausibility would have been to base their judgements on the actual state of knowledge at the time, rather than paying attention to future knowledge.
Besides - you do realize that I was asking, IF certain ideas (diet causes colon cancer; mysterious skin bacteria cause colon cancer) WERE newly proposed hypotheses without research support, not well developed mainstream ideas, THEN which would we consider to be more likely just based on our general knowledge of human biology? That you don't understand a hypothetical question is your issue, not mine. (I trust you will not be offended by this phrasing, since it's yours.)
I take it, also, that as Darrell implies, there is actually no published research to support the skin-bacteria hypothesis. I am not asking you to write an essay on it if there is, just cite, say, two papers so that I can go and look them up.
Thanks for the citation; however, it is to a chapter in a book with a non-negligible cost. Any peer-reviewed publications in the primary literature, for which at least abstracts are available online?
The knee-jerk response of snooty assholes who think that they look more educated or forward-thinking or refined because "they dont drink 'soda' or eat Doritos" is unimpressive.
a little late, but I would say:
Good thing the serious objections had nothing to do with that.
try this link
http://books.google.com/books?id=a3mwmXzpsjkC&lpg=PA103&ots=Elc3X4YAXn&…
That is interesting. However, the authors of this chapter only propose a hypothesis that skin bacteria are related to immune and inflammatory conditions (they don't mention cancer), which they acknowledge to be based on "numerous assumptions" that have not yet been tested - including the assumptions that skin nitrate levels vary with hygiene and that nitrate is absorbable through the skin. So this is somewhat less impressive than if they were able to review a list of studies that demonstrated that their hypothesis was at least possible.
These authors seem to think of nitrate and nitrite as good for you, period, and fret that the relative lack of nitrate in processed foods is bad for us. They state directly that all swallowed nitrite (after conversion from nitrate in saliva) is either absorbed or used to generate NO. Now, the mainstream view is that swallowed nitrites are also used to generate nitrosamines, which are generally thought to be carcinogens. For this reason, there has been a deliberate effort to reduce the formerly very high nitrate content in processed meats. Telling people that they ought to consume a lot of nitrate may not be very good advice. If I had edited this book I would have objected to these authors' conclusions, as they turn around and state as fact things for which they previously admitted they had little or no evidence.
They do offer citations as to the fate of swallowed nitrite.
The mainstream view in the NO research community is that the idea that nitrate in food and drinking water is bad is not supported by good science. The foods that are highest in nitrate (green leafy vegetables have a few thousand ppm nitrate) are the foods that correlate most strongly with good health.
The idea that nitrite in the gut causes nitrosoamine formation has not been verified experimentally. People with the highest nitrate consumption (vegetarians) tend to have low cancer rates (for some cancers).
If you conclude an idea has a low prior plausibility, you should be able to provide positive support for implausibility; support that derives from something other than ignorance.
If you can't, you should concede that you don't know enough to know if an idea is implausible or not. That should be your default in the face of ignorance. It is unfortunate that so many people are unwilling to say âI don't knowâ when they should.
That was the whole basis of the Pepsicopocolypse. People thought they knew what Pepsico was going to write and so Pepsico got expelled before they wrote anything.
Main objection I have to Mountain Dew is that it resembles the anti-freeze coolant that is used in cars. Many children, thinking the stuff is their favorite soft drink, die every year from drinking the stuff.
Personally, I don't like any ingestible product that is colored blue. I can't think of any food, in nature, that is blue. Blueberries don't count because they are more deep purple in color. Perhaps anti-freeze should be colored blue instead and other blue drinks be discouraged.
Think of the children!
Well, maybe the downsides of nitrate have been exaggerated; that doesn't mean we should turn around and start exaggerating the benefits either. As for prior plausibility, if everyone would agree to use "low plausibility" strictly to mean "impossible if currently well-accepted theories are true," I'd be fine with that. However, it has to be consistently applied. One can certainly say that homeopathy is of low plausibility. One can't say that herbal remedies are, just because one doesn't like them, as some of the SBM crowd have been known to do.
I don't think anyone who opposed the Pepsi blog claimed to know what its contents would be. They only claimed to know that it would not be independent science written by a blogger who was free to speak his mind. No blogger is really objective - there's no such person - but someone who is acting as a paid spokesman for a corporation with financial interests in a subject is less objective than most. I for one am glad to hear that Pepsi is getting the boot.
This post made me go look up when I last had a Mountain Dew.
Not been sold in the UK for twelve years.
http://www.hodgson.trelader.btinternet.co.uk/
Damn that makes me feel old.
"dewey" said:
I'm guessing dewey mixed my name up with some other commenter. Either that, or his irrational rage has overcome his ability to read.
Nothing I've posted on this site, or on any "nutrition blog," could even remotely be construed as an expression of hatred of Muslims. (And technically, the comment to which heâs referring didnât even appear on a nutrition blog; it was on Pharyngula.)
It's true I don't like the religion of Islam very much, and I gladly participated in Everybody Draw Mohammad Day as an expression of solidarity with the cartoonists and publishers who suffered death threats for publishing cartoons of Mohammad.
But I also don't like the religion of Christianity very much. Hey, I'm an atheist. It's what we do. I poke fun at Christianity often and joyfully â MUCH more than I poke fun at Islam.
Neither of those things is "hatred" for the individual humans who express belief in one or the other of those religions. It's simple disagreement, and freedom of expression, which â despite what dewey seems to believe â is the right of every human.
Dewdrop, you're welcome to believe in your own private mind, what you have of it, that my poking fun at Mohammad (or Jesus) is somehow an expression of hatred. But, damn, kid, get a grip: You don't have to spit such NASTY accusations out in public.
In addition to betraying what appears to be an unexamined opposition to freedom of speech, it literally makes you look insane.
Forgot to mention: Canfield's diet chocolate fudge and diet cherry chocolate fudge are the greatest soda's ever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canfield's_Diet_Chocolate_Fudge
For folks on a budget, the Kroger store brand "Citrus Drop Extreme" is a good replacement for Mountain Dew.
My daughter laughed at the "extreme" name and I responded that it was an "extreme" value.
Mountain dew enema is the best experience ive ever had. loved every second of it, only classic green, dont mess with that livewire. one time i drank 30 dews in one day and had a dew-fueled boner for 6 hours.
get a life, guys. blogging online about soda?