Barry Marshall

Number of Starlink subscribers: Feb 2026: 10 million Dec 2025: 9 million Nov 2025: 8 million Aug 2025: 7 million June 2025: 6 million Feb 2025: 5 million Sep 2024: 4 million May 2024: 3 million Sep 2023: 2 million Dec 2022: 1 million Oct 2020: beta launch

just subscribed to YouTube Premium and yk what i've realised? ads ruin our lives. I feel so free watching content now.

“If a study is funded by a industry, it can’t be trusted.” It sounds skeptical. It sounds smart. But it’s wrong. And if you actually care about evidence, here’s what you need to know. Let’s start with the claim: 💬 “They’re just buying the results.” 💬 “Industry-funded science is fake.” 💬 “You can’t trust corporate research.” Sounds reasonable. Until you look at how science actually works. FACT: Many breakthrough studies are funded by companies. Think: 💊 Clinical trials for life-saving drugs. 🌾 Crop science to improve yields. 🔋 Battery tech for green energy. No private funding = no progress. But doesn’t that create bias? It can - if no one checks. That’s why we built layers of independent oversight: ✅ Peer review. ✅ Regulator audits. ✅ Transparency rules. ✅ Replication studies. ✅ Disclosure of conflicts. Science is built to detect BS. In fact, most high-impact industry studies must pass through: 🔍 Independent regulatory agencies (FDA, EMA, EFSA, EPA…) 📊 External review panels 📁 Public data disclosures This isn’t “trust us.” It’s “prove it - again, and again.” Here’s what people forget: Funding source ≠ result quality. Study design, methods, transparency, and independent review do. A bad study funded by an NGO is still a bad study. A rigorous study funded by a company can still be true. Want an example? Every single vaccine you took was tested in company-funded trials. Those trials were also reviewed, re-reviewed, and approved by independent scientists across multiple agencies. That’s why we trust the data - not the logo. Let’s fix the narrative: ❌ “Industry = lies” ✅ “Transparency + oversight = credibility” Dismissing evidence just because of who paid for it is lazy skepticism. Real critical thinking asks: “Was it done right?” Not “Who signed the check?” So next time someone says: “If it’s funded by industry, I don’t trust it.” Ask them: Do you read the methods? Do you apply that logic to every study? Or are you just outsourcing your skepticism? Science doesn’t care who pays. It cares what holds up. 🧪👀