Does funding something invalidate the results? This is a serious question. There is a meme on the internet that 97% of scientists' work supports their funders. Not true.
In the US, the NIH funds ~1/3 of medical research. The other 2/3s is funded by private sources, mostly the pharma companies themselves who are required by the FDA to prove their products are safe and effective.
Are the study results always positive because Pharma's funding them? No. Not at all. In fact negative results are quite common. One of the most recognizable is recent studies on aspirin for prevention of a first heart attack or stroke (primary prevention). The data have been pretty clear. The risks from major bleeding are about the same as the risk reduction provided. That is, you exchange the risk of getting hospitalized for a heart attack with getting hospitalized due to GI ulcers or something similar. We no longer widely recommend the baby aspirin to much of anyone.
The point here is that if we want to prove FTX had a hand in determining the results, we need to actually prove a direct tie between FTX and the team which included 27 lead authors (are they all corrupt and can we prove it?), and a deliberate effort to shape the results. Writing the check alone isn't proof of anything. If you're going to attempt to debunk the study, you need to actually address the study itself.
I'm not interested in being rabbling around like an enraged mob simply because some guy in the crowd shouts something incendiary. It's mob mentality and it leads to sheep-like behavior.
Does funding something invalidate the results? This is a serious question. There is a meme on the internet that 97% of scientists' work supports their funders. Not true.
In the US, the NIH funds ~1/3 of medical research. The other 2/3s is funded by private sources, mostly the pharma companies themselves who are required by the FDA to prove their products are safe and effective.
Are the study results always positive because Pharma's funding them? No. Not at all. In fact negative results are quite common. One of the most recognizable is recent studies on aspirin for prevention of a first heart attack or stroke (primary prevention). The data have been pretty clear. The risks from major bleeding are about the same as the risk reduction provided. That is, you exchange the risk of getting hospitalized for a heart attack with getting hospitalized due to GI ulcers or something similar. We no longer widely recommend the baby aspirin to much of anyone.
The point here is that if we want to prove FTX had a hand in determining the results, we need to actually prove a direct tie between FTX and the team which included 27 lead authors (are they all corrupt and can we prove it?), and a deliberate effort to shape the results. Writing the check alone isn't proof of anything. If you're going to attempt to debunk the study, you need to actually address the study itself.
I'm not interested in being rabbling around like an enraged mob simply because some guy in the crowd shouts something incendiary. It's mob mentality and it leads to sheep-like behavior.