[garbagetime]

> it is definitely not unbiased.

Can one really reach that conclusion from your evidence? A person can recieve sponsorships without allowing that fact to influence the person's writing.

[wallscratch]

That’s true, but my view is even if the original article is unbiased, the selection process by which it was chosen to appear on this periodical with the reach it has introduces some statistical bias.

[b4je7d7wb]

That's perhaps a bit pendatic. Maybe vested interest would be a more accurate term, but the idea is quite clear from context.

[throw_pm23]

Yes, a person peddling a harmful substance donates to making a broader set of harmful substances more acceptable.

[dustymcp]

I agree all those cheseburgers French fries and cheese platters need to go!

[coldtea]

Only theoritically, in an abstract sense only applicable in lab settings.

In real life and in practice there is always some influencing, some internal censorship, some gloves being kept on, and so on. And it's ten times so if the person wants to continue to receive more sponsorships in the future...

[ornornor]

> A person can recieve sponsorships without allowing that fact to influence the person's writing.

yeah right.

[ed_elliott_asc]

Are Philip morris getting into the ecstasy business? Seems unlikely.

[throw_pm23]

No but if more harmful things get normalised, then users of their product can feel less guilty.

It's a variation on the "commoditize your complement" pattern.

(before someone says: "actually x is less harmful than y", I mean their perception by the general public)

[vasachi]

They probably would, if it was legal.

[cycrutchfield]

Don’t give them any ideas