You might want to do some reading about something called "conflict of interest."

I'm familiar with it.

Great comment.

So you have no qualms with the research paid for by tobacco companies or oil companies either, I take it?

I'm a bit perplexed by your comments (and a sibling one) who seems to take great ire (offense?) to a comment that take a part out of the linked article that I personally found "Hillarious".

>How about this: can you point to any part of the study which is improper or wrong or looks like this bias may have affected it?

The comment that I commented on did exactly this; did you expect me to recite that part? I get your criticism if I directly commented on the article, but I merely commented on the additional detail already presented in a comment. (or are you suggesting that a requirement for finding something hilarious is a thoroughly analyzed rebuttal on top of an existing criticism?)

Also, again, I didn't make any argument, but a comment of a quote (observation) presented in the source material linked by parent comment.

so I'd suggest take a step back, read the two comments, ask yourself "what context am I willfully ignoring and putting word in to the commenters mouth"

Thanks for your opinion though, interesting fact about politics and al gore

No, the comment you commented on didn't do that. That person was commenting on the reaction to the paper - of the science journos that wrote an article about it, and readers who took the article's take as gospel. Which is why they ended their post with "I guess no one even took the time to read the abstract of the paper". Because the abstract is fairly innocuous and straight forward, as is the conclusion.

If your assertion is that GPs criticism is about the confidence intervals and the prevalence of "low certainty" - that is the conclusion of the paper. The researchers can't really know the conclusions until they do the research. So would it be better if they didn't publish their paper since the results weren't a glowing endorsement of honey? Isn't it a good thing they published results and called out the fact that they are low certainty?

It would be less hilarious if there were more "honey bad funded by big honey" studies. But those seem to be rare. "Alcohol bad for you funded by Budweiser" stories never seem to show up on HN but if they did they would immediately get my attention.

> Do you expect Exxon or Facebook to fund studies on honey?

yes, through the public research funds allocated from taxes

Can't wait for the next government drawn food pyramid.