National Post opinion articles have very little value added.
It’s written by a university professor with a doctorate in clinical psychology who is activity involved with the subject at hand. But fuck the natpo right?
Wow, that prof is an embarrassment.
Yes. I’ll take the word of the man with a doctorate studying the topic at hand putting his reputation on the line versus an anonymous source saying they’re wrong. Or can we only trust the ones whose views aline with our own regardless of substance?
That would be over a dozen sources, and they weren’t anonymous in the letter sent to the faculty.
Neither is Dr. Thomas Kerr, Director of Research with the BC Centre on Substance Use. In fact, he’s a man with a doctorate studying the topic at hand! He says Dr. Somers’ work fails to live up to scientific standards.
I guess you’ll take his word for it, given his qualifications. Right?
Of course, and the authors of the pro safe supply papers Dr. Somers cited as well. Which seemed to show that the current data didn’t support safe supply.
Creds don’t mean shit.
That’s why any decent academic publication has riggerous peer review.
Also, have you read the article? It’s just this dude rambling about how the matrix silenced him, and they had no right, and it was all unfounded, and it’s all because advocates stand to make money.
Without providing a shred of evidence.
I submitted to you that If someone viciously misrepresented my work as he claims was done to him I would publish a meticulous response with lots of facts, figures, and evidence. However, this article is not that.
For instance: what is this “problematic search strategy” the bccsu mentioned? Why did he not elaborate and rebut their claims?
Fair point. From the research paper itself his standards for studies he cited were:
- Reporting original research findings
- Advocating for safe supply
- Appearing in peer reviewed journals
From a CBC article another commenter here posted, the BCCSU’s issues with his paper are as follows: “Its conclusion is not based on existing evidence; It does not accurately describe safer supply interventions; It does not accurately portray the preferences of people who use drugs; It mischaracterizes the research expertise of those currently evaluating safer supply; Recommendations that go beyond safe supply are not based on scientific evidence”
Then, from the original posted article: “The letter’s signatories (the matrix) didn’t mention that they were the authors of the papers we reviewed or that they received funding linked to PSAD.”
Unfortunately it gets political and enters a grey area of “yes that’s my data and no it doesn’t currently support this but you’re not interpreting it the way I did and my way is right”
Apologies for the wall of text
