“Is this article consistent with the latest thinking and knowledge in science?”
“Would experts in this field endorse the main message of this article?”
These are the types of questions our “feedbacks” are designed to answer. If the feedback is positive, you can generally assume the information you’re reading is of high credibility. If it’s negative, however, you may want to read with extra care and attention — some of the information contained and conclusions reached are not consistent with science.
Viral news article misinterprets classification of processed meat as carcinogenic in claiming it is “as harmful as cigarettes”
in Truth Reporter, by vinit
"The classification of processed meat as “Group 1” – carcinogenic to humans means that the evidence is as strong as for other risk factors included in the Group 1 category, including tobacco. It does not mean that the risk is the same. While Cancer Research UK estimates that 19% of all cancers are caused by tobacco, processed meat is estimated to cause 3% of all cancers. The presentation of the facts in this article is therefore inaccurate, confusing and misleading to the readers."
— 05 Dec 2018
Time article accurately describes distinguishing features between influenza infection and infection by other respiratory viruses
in Time, by Markham Heid
"Generally accurate. However, the main issue is that influenza viruses can also cause a "cold", i.e. upper respiratory tract infection. A "cold" is a symptom/diagnosis whereas "influenza" is a virus that can cause symptoms such as a cold. There could be a better distinction by saying there are lots of viruses (flu, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), human metapneumovirus (HMPV), rhinovirus, coronavirus, etc.) that cause respiratory infections including 'colds' and 'chest infections'."
— 28 Nov 2018
 Note: These feedbacks do not constitute endorsements of the author’s political or economic ideology, rather they are assessments of the scientific foundations and reasoning of the argumentation contained within each article.