Scientific research: How much is a sham?

InCommando · **Posted:** Sun Feb 07, 2010 4:13 pm

For those who cared to look, the research claiming that the Earth's natural climate cycle was being effected by man has always been B.S. Recently this info has recieved much more mainstream coverage.

For a couple of decades supposedly legit research linked vaccinations to autism and other horrible things. That research is debunked to the point where at least one country is considering a criminal investigation into the study.

We were told that that saturated fat had horrible health side effects despite some points of light arguing against these findings. Guess what? The most recent and most comprehensive data ever shows no such link!

What do you think they deal is with all of this?

linewarbr · **Posted:** Sun Feb 07, 2010 4:25 pm

Follow the money.

Hypothetical problem (trumped up or otherwise) = research. Research = grants and/ or private funding by corporations. Grants/ private funding = money. Findings of research = legislation to fund more research, and legislation to require changes to different procedures/ chemicals/ best practices that (may) benefit the corporation that funded the research.

Like Cuba Gooding Jr. said. . . "SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!"

ATXKJ · **Posted:** Sun Feb 07, 2010 4:34 pm

Don't read headlines
Don't listen to talking heads

find the original paper
read the Methods
learn to doublecheck their statistics.

'How to Read a Paper - the basics of evidence-based medicine'
works really well for non-medical papers too
http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Paper-Evidence-based-Medicine/dp/1405139765

also Bjorn Lomborg's 'the Skeptical environmentalist' is a pretty good statistics textbook
(and reads like one)http://www.amazon.com/Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State-World/dp/0521010683

Oh yeah -
and if you can't make the argument against your own position as well or better than the people you disagree with,
then you don't have enough information to make a reasoned judgment.

Sir Sam · **Posted:** Sun Feb 07, 2010 4:54 pm

ATXKJ wrote:

Oh yeah -
and if you can't make the argument against your own position as well or better than the people you disagree with,
then you don't have enough information to make a reasoned judgment.

x2

Diggerfreek · **Posted:** Sun Feb 07, 2010 5:00 pm

Sir Sam wrote:

ATXKJ wrote:

Oh yeah -
and if you can't make the argument against your own position as well or better than the people you disagree with,
then you don't have enough information to make a reasoned judgment.

x2

X3

KJ 119 · **Posted:** Sun Feb 07, 2010 6:24 pm

I cook with butter. :rockon:

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:31 pm

X4

Trans-fats the pushed replacement for saturated fats were once developed to have a Bio-Candle Wax to compeat with petroleum wax. Edison screwed them over and invented the electric light bulb

So they had to have a scam to sell their Bio-Crap.
Now there is legislation to ban Trans-fats due to health reasons.
We have used butter and Avoided Trans-fats fore over 35 years.
Wife might be a Klingon, but I love her anyway.

Follow the money

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Sun Feb 07, 2010 10:07 pm

Make you want to cry: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 017922.ece

Not me :-)r

How about Prison for this Jerk!!!

Tokyojoe · **Posted:** Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:14 pm

For centuries, moms told their sons not to "choke the chicken" or it will turn black and fall off.

When you make a face and someone slaps you on your back, your face will freeze that way.

Step on a crack, break your momma's back.

Break a mirror and have seven years bad luck.

Eggs are bad for you.

A lot of research from the old days had many limitations. New technologies help dig deeper to find truths. There was also a lot of corporate research done with a lot of advertising to promote a research finding even though it was false (paid for by said corporation). Superstitions can also get intertwined into some research also.

As for humans not having ANY affect onthe Earth's climate, you have to be a fool to think we do not affect it at all. The question is, how much do we affect it?

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:58 pm

Tokyojoe wrote:

As for humans not having ANY affect onthe Earth's climate, you have to be a fool to think we do not affect it at all. The question is, how much do we affect it?

Those durn lumber companies keep planting trees, and farmers don't get all the corn they grow making the deer population go up. I bet that effects the environment.
Like I have said before the Cereal Box PHDs know and do less for the environment than the hiker, biker, fisherman, hunter, construction worker, engineer, ect.

Scientific research: How much is a sham?

Who is online