FYI, the Institute of Economic Affairs, where Snowdon works, is known to have received funding from alcohol, tobacco, sugar, gambling, and oil industry lobbies.[1] The UK’s Charity Commission recently opened an investigation into IEA.[2]
This is particularly relevant because the reader is dependent on trusting Snowdon to have conducted a balanced review of the literature. I was already skeptical that he had done so even before considering that he has an ideological axe to grind and now a potential financial conflict of interest.
The article has value; it reminds us that local context matters and that we should exercise caution in blindly applying a general finding to specific circumstances. But it would have been a lot stronger if it had grappled with the arguments and evidence that led WHO to deem these interventions best buys, and had acknowledged the limited scope of his own data analysis more.
FYI, the Institute of Economic Affairs, where Snowdon works, is known to have received funding from alcohol, tobacco, sugar, gambling, and oil industry lobbies.[1] The UK’s Charity Commission recently opened an investigation into IEA.[2]
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/07/30/bp-funding-institute-of-economic-affairs-gambling/
https://goodlawproject.org/update/charity-commission-opens-investigation-into-iea/
This is particularly relevant because the reader is dependent on trusting Snowdon to have conducted a balanced review of the literature. I was already skeptical that he had done so even before considering that he has an ideological axe to grind and now a potential financial conflict of interest.
The article has value; it reminds us that local context matters and that we should exercise caution in blindly applying a general finding to specific circumstances. But it would have been a lot stronger if it had grappled with the arguments and evidence that led WHO to deem these interventions best buys, and had acknowledged the limited scope of his own data analysis more.