Author Topic: Safe Injection Sites in Ontario and the Idea of 'Evidence'  (Read 630 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
It's almost like the journalists' biases make them think it's unnecessary to explain WHY safe injection sites are effective, because they themselves believe it.  It's a different take on liberal media bias but it seems apt to me.
Good observation. The problem with scientific evidence is not all evidence is equal yet the media seems to treat it as the same. i.e. the evidence supporting the theory a gravity is much better than the evidence supporting the tobacco cancer link which, in turn, is much better than the evidence that says alcohol is good for you in small quantities. The hierarchy of evidence is exacerbated by the self selection problem in science: only scientists that choose to dedicate their careers to a topic choose to research it which makes it very unlikely that they will discover anything that renders their chosen field less important.

When it comes to injection sites I believe almost all of the studies are being done by people who wish to see the government spend money on harm reduction research which means they set up their studies in a way to make injections sites look as good as possible by emphasizing the positive while minimizing the negative. So it comes as no surprise that the "evidence" says they work. Whether they actually work or the evidence is a simply a reflection of the biases of the researchers is open question. A lot depends on who gets to set to criteria that are being used to judge if they are effective. For example, the only criteria I think are important are the number of addicts who get clean as a result of their interactions with professionals at these clinics. If addicts are not getting clean then the clinics are a failure that may be prolonging addictions by enabling addicts.

« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 07:35:38 am by TimG »
Dumb Dumb x 3 View List