Watching the Detectives: Logical Fallacies and Unsubstantiated Claims to Denigrate Investigations of Leaders ' Conflicts of Interest and Alleged Corruption

DiscussionSo here is one example, one anecdote, showing, in my humble opinion, an extreme case of illogical, unsupported argumentation in defense of our current president against multiple credible allegations of conflicts of interest and corruption.  These allegations should concern anyone who cares about conflicts of interest and corruption in health care, because the presidency sets the tone for the whole country, and up to now, the executive branch of the US government provided the most and best resources for preventing and challenging conflicts of interest in health care.  Obviously, these allegations should also concern anyone who cares about the state or representative democracy in the US.This case is notable because of the academic credentials of the person whose argumentation was so illogical and unsubstantiated.  Someone with such a prestigious academic position ought to know better, I think.The case was also notable for how this widely published article seems to have inspired no criticism to date.  Of course, note that analyzing a short article filled with logical fallacies and unsubantiated claims likely takes much longer than writing said article.  Furthermore, note that the criticism takes much more space than the article itself.  This makes it hard to do criticism that is likely to be noticed much or have much effect.So in conclusion let me takesomething I wrote about bad arguments in support of conflicts of interest in medicine in ...
Source: Health Care Renewal - Category: Health Management Tags: conflicts of interest disinformation Donald Trump health care corruption logical fallacies propaganda Source Type: blogs