Forbes: "Why I Don't Trust Government-Backed 'Gun Violence' Research"

jnichols2 said:
I didn't read the article, as it required that I first turn off my ad blocker.
Click to expand...

I use Firefox, Chrome and Opera. Ad blockers in all three. I checked and didn't have a problem reading the article in either of them.

jnichols2 said:
I seem to remember something about a "Free Press".
Click to expand...

Freedom of the press is about government censorship. It has absolutely nothing to do about a private entity ("Forbes") choosing to receive revenue for publishing their articles.
 
It won't let me view the story with my adblocker turned on either. Apparently they allow adblockers if you are a member.

"We noticed you still have your ad blocker on, please log in to continue to the site" is the message I get.
 
I realize this is an older thread but posted to it for continuity about inflated CDC statistics:

http://knoxblogs.com/humphreyhill/2016/09/14/tn-leads-nation-2014-accidental-gun-deaths/

The original article I saw (Sorry, I didn't save the link for some reason.) said the CDC claimed a "coding error" was responsible. Appears even The Safe Tennessee Project couldn't believe this one.

Edit to add these links I found but neither of these the one I saw originally:

http://www.guns.com/2016/10/19/cdc-...dental-gunshot-deaths-thanks-to-dr-john-lott/

https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/...dc-contaminates-the-facts-with-false-numbers/
 
Last edited:
If they changed 5 into 105 :eek:, no matter the cause, then I believe this to be completely true, though, not, I think in the same way the speaker meant it..

Jonathan Metzl, research director for the Safe Tennessee Project, in a Sept. 14 statement. “This data truly should be a wake-up call for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.”
Click to expand...

Here's your wake up call boys and girls, they LIE!!!!

intentional or accidental, doesn't change the fact that they published grossly inaccurate information, and then made public policy recommendations based on that, UNTIL someone challenged their figures.

Makes one wonder how many other instances, and in how many areas they have done this kind of thing in, before???
 
Following some of the links in the original article it appears some CDC researchers were contacted by outside groups and/or were themselves personally affiliated with outside groups that would have liked to have seen different results than originally published.

It appears one of the CDC researchers personally affiliated with one of the outside groups sliced and diced the data until it said what he wanted. His study was ultimately retracted after peer review found many flaws and inconsistencies in his methods.

Some of the linked articles stated the retracted study would have lead toward some kind of government action had it stood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top