Why It's OK Not to Trust "Scientific Studies" info thread

[Yahtzee]

I don't trust science because Pluto isn't a planet anymore!!! :(( :((
But seriously, this is an important discussion.
I took Consumer Health in college. Best class I ever took in my life. One of the main things that stood out to me was when my professor held up the Food Pyramid and asked us if we thought it was healthy.
Of course we agreed it was.
Then he asked us who made the food pyramid?
"Uh the government." We start feeling skeptical at this point.
He points to the bottom where it shows it was sponsored by the USDA. Then he asks the big question-who is the USDA looking out for? Farmers or citizens.
It was at that point we all realized we'd been duped our whole childhoods. I mean, 7-10 servings of whole grains daily... And none of us questioned it?
He said when it comes to studies and guidelines, "Always look at the sponsor and follow the money."

[JohnnyL]

"4, 4, 3, 2, That's the way for me and you!"
Grains; vegetables and fruit; dairy; meat.

That was the food pyramid before that we learned in school.

[Silver Pie]

We didn't have a food pyramid. We had the four food groups. Grains (white flour was as good as "wheat" flour), meat (nuts added later), fruits and veggies, and dairy products (which included eggs). At some point, they redid the whole thing and added sugars and fats.

[onefour1]

How many have watched "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", by Ben Stein? Here it is for your viewing pleasure:

[JohnnyL]

Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, in the NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption”:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

///

Richard Horton (another pro’s pro), editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”:

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…
“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…”

[BeNotDeceived]

Story at-a-glance-

The sugar industry has long known that sugar consumption triggers poor health, but hid the incriminating data, much like the tobacco industry hid the evidence linking smoking to lung cancer.

Historical documents show the sugar industry has spent decades manipulating, molding and guiding nutritional research to exonerate sugar by shifting the blame for obesity and heart disease to saturated fat.

The documents also show the sugar industry buried evidence from the 1960s that linked sugar consumption to heart disease and bladder cancer. ...

[Son of Liberty]

How many have watched "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", by Ben Stein? Here it is for your viewing pleasure:

What a great video never New clear eye guy could speak so much truth.

[Juliet]

Very good thread. Not only scientific material, but any published material can be misleading. Including the news media, and including that which is taught to our children.

[Vision]

New York Times columnist says 'Stanford Study' bashing organics is totally flawed

Monday, October 22, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) The conclusions arrived at in the infamous "Stanford study," which the mainstream media has been hyping up as "proof" that pesticide-ridden, conventional produce and meat products are basically the same as their organic alternatives, are flawed, says New York Times columnist Mark Bittman. In one of the few honest assessments of the study to emerge from a mainstream news source, a recent editorial written by Bittman explains that the Stanford study essentially compares apples to oranges, and misses the bigger picture as to why organic food is superior to conventional food.

Rather than carefully analyze the full implications of the 200-or-so existing studies they reviewed as part of their meta-analysis, Stanford researchers instead focused solely on an extremely limited scope of criteria in evaluating the potential nutritional differences between organic and conventional food, suggests Bittman. These researchers then extrapolated their incomplete assessment into a general ruling concerning organics, which suggests organic foods are not nutritionally superior to conventional foods.

Stanford study can't see the forest for the trees
To be fair, the Stanford study does explain that organic foods may contain fewer pesticide residues than conventional foods. It also highlights how organic milk is preferable to conventional milk, and that organic produce contains higher phosphorus levels than conventional produce. But the study's final declaration, which seems to discredit the overall value and benefit of organics, ignores these other findings, choosing instead to view the entire issue through the lens of strictly nutritional differences, which even from that angle led to a limited and incomplete conclusion.

"If I may play with metaphor for a moment, the study was like declaring guns no more dangerous than baseball bats when it comes to blunt-object head injuries," writes Bittman, illustrating how clueless the Stanford study researchers made themselves appear with their impotent assessment of organics. "It was the equivalent of comparing milk and Elmer's glue on the basis of whiteness."

To quote the words of Susan Clark, Executive Director of the Columbia Foundation, a human rights group, the Stanford study researchers "started with a narrow set of assumptions and arrived at entirely predictable conclusions." Even within the category of nutritional differences, which was their primary scope of comparison, Stanford researchers failed to evaluate the full scope of nutrients found in produce and meat, which falsely implies that there are no nutritional differences between organic and conventional foods.

Organic study that came to opposite conclusion largely ignored by mainstream media
Interestingly, a similar assessment by Kirsten Brandt of Newcastle University in the U.K., which included many of the same studies analyzed in the Stanford study, found quite the opposite concerning organics. According to Brandt's analysis, which was published in the journal Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences in 2011, organic produce actually contains far higher levels of secondary metabolites than does conventional produce. These secondary metabolites are believed to be largely combative against a wide range of chronic illnesses. (http://phys.org/news/2011-05-fruit-vegetables.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

The takeaway from all this is that the Stanford study is largely deficient in its assessment of organics, which means the mainstream media has erred greatly, whether deliberately or out of ignorance, in its various declarations that organic food is a waste of money and effort. In reality, organic food continues to outpace conventional food in almost every way, a fact that even the Stanford study admits in spite of its erroneous conclusions.

Sources for this article include:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mark Bittman is a known animal rights activist. No bias there

[JohnnyL]

https://www.infowars.com/the-number-one ... -colleges/

... Here’s a coda:

This one is big.

The so-called “chemical-imbalance theory of mental disorders” is dead. The notion that an underlying chemical imbalance in the brain causes mental disorders: dead.

Dr. Ronald Pies, the editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, laid the theory to rest in the July 11, 2011, issue of the Times with this staggering admission:

“In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion was always a kind of urban legend — never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.”

Boom.

However…urban legend? No. For decades the whole basis of psychiatric drug research, drug prescription, and drug sales has been: “we’re correcting a chemical imbalance in the brain.”

The problem was, researchers had never established a normal baseline for chemical balance. So they were shooting in the dark. Worse, they were faking a theory. Pretending they knew something when they didn’t.

In his 2011 piece in Psychiatric Times, Dr. Pies tries to protect his colleagues in the psychiatric profession with this fatuous remark:

“In the past 30 years, I don’t believe I have ever heard a knowledgeable, well-trained psychiatrist make such a preposterous claim [about chemical imbalance in the brain], except perhaps to mock it…the ‘chemical imbalance’ image has been vigorously promoted by some pharmaceutical companies, often to the detriment of our patients’ understanding.”

Absurd. First of all, many psychiatrists have explained and do explain to their patients that the drugs are there to correct a chemical imbalance.

And second, if all well-trained psychiatrists have known, all along, that the chemical-imbalance theory is a fraud…

…then why on earth have they been prescribing tons of drugs to their patients…

…since those drugs are developed on the false premise that they correct a chemical imbalance?

Here’s what’s happening. The honchos of psychiatry are seeing the handwriting on the wall. Their game has been exposed. They’re taking heavy flack on many fronts.

The chemical-imbalance theory is a fake. There are no defining physical tests for any of the 300 so-called mental disorders. All diagnoses are based on arbitrary clusters or menus of human behavior. The drugs are harmful, dangerous, toxic. Some of them induce violence. Suicide, homicide. Some of the drugs cause brain damage...

[JohnnyL]

An absolutely fitting quote from https://universalmodel.com/about/qa/:

"Q9: Why is the Universal Model not written and published from within the scientific establishment?
A: Today, most new scientific theories and papers submitted through the scientific establishment undergo a rigorous review process where establishment-trained peers decide whether the content is worthy and within the confined views of their respective field. In the past, many large changes in science through new discovery have not come from within the scientific establishment, but from individuals that used an outside perspective. New theories and papers within the establishment are typically complicated, built on old theories and written to the well-schooled peer groups that continue to believe in the old theories. The Universal Model is not about complicated theories; it is about simple models that demonstrate new natural laws, which are observable in nature. This method of science is a return to the original way scientific inquiry and study was conducted centuries ago."

///
This goes hand in hand with another experience of a group that solved schizophrenia and can heal it. No psychiatrists/psychologists/mental illness groups are interested because, well, everyone knows it needs to be treated with drugs.

[simpleton]

https://www.infowars.com/the-number-one ... -colleges/

... Here’s a coda:

This one is big.

The so-called “chemical-imbalance theory of mental disorders” is dead. The notion that an underlying chemical imbalance in the brain causes mental disorders: dead.

Dr. Ronald Pies, the editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, laid the theory to rest in the July 11, 2011, issue of the Times with this staggering admission:

“In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion was always a kind of urban legend — never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.”

Boom.

However…urban legend? No. For decades the whole basis of psychiatric drug research, drug prescription, and drug sales has been: “we’re correcting a chemical imbalance in the brain.”

The problem was, researchers had never established a normal baseline for chemical balance. So they were shooting in the dark. Worse, they were faking a theory. Pretending they knew something when they didn’t.

In his 2011 piece in Psychiatric Times, Dr. Pies tries to protect his colleagues in the psychiatric profession with this fatuous remark:

“In the past 30 years, I don’t believe I have ever heard a knowledgeable, well-trained psychiatrist make such a preposterous claim [about chemical imbalance in the brain], except perhaps to mock it…the ‘chemical imbalance’ image has been vigorously promoted by some pharmaceutical companies, often to the detriment of our patients’ understanding.”

Absurd. First of all, many psychiatrists have explained and do explain to their patients that the drugs are there to correct a chemical imbalance.

And second, if all well-trained psychiatrists have known, all along, that the chemical-imbalance theory is a fraud…

…then why on earth have they been prescribing tons of drugs to their patients…

…since those drugs are developed on the false premise that they correct a chemical imbalance?

Here’s what’s happening. The honchos of psychiatry are seeing the handwriting on the wall. Their game has been exposed. They’re taking heavy flack on many fronts.

The chemical-imbalance theory is a fake. There are no defining physical tests for any of the 300 so-called mental disorders. All diagnoses are based on arbitrary clusters or menus of human behavior. The drugs are harmful, dangerous, toxic. Some of them induce violence. Suicide, homicide. Some of the drugs cause brain damage...

And so it goes... As my fathers first hand experience has showed.. the vast majority if not all that are committed into psychiatric wards or Insane asylums are possessed. Simple but true. And for that matter so are probably most of us on the outside to greater or lesser degrees.

[simpleton]

An absolutely fitting quote from https://universalmodel.com/about/qa/:

"Q9: Why is the Universal Model not written and published from within the scientific establishment?
A: Today, most new scientific theories and papers submitted through the scientific establishment undergo a rigorous review process where establishment-trained peers decide whether the content is worthy and within the confined views of their respective field. In the past, many large changes in science through new discovery have not come from within the scientific establishment, but from individuals that used an outside perspective. New theories and papers within the establishment are typically complicated, built on old theories and written to the well-schooled peer groups that continue to believe in the old theories. The Universal Model is not about complicated theories; it is about simple models that demonstrate new natural laws, which are observable in nature. This method of science is a return to the original way scientific inquiry and study was conducted centuries ago."

///
This goes hand in hand with another experience of a group that solved schizophrenia and can heal it. further explanation?

No psychiatrists/psychologists/mental illness groups are interested because, well, everyone knows it needs to be treated with drugs.

[BackBlast]

This goes hand in hand with another experience of a group that solved schizophrenia and can heal it. further explanation?

Ask if the subject wishes to have the spirit removed. Ask if they believe in Jesus Christ and his power to heal. If yes, proceed.

Fast for 24 hours and ask that the subject fast as well. Request those who have an interest in the well being of the subject join the fast as well as those who will be doing the blessing.

Follow the spirit in rebuking the evil or unclean spirit(s) from the person. This may be an oil anointing, arm to the square, or something else, follow the spirit.

Repeat steps as necessary.

Be aware that some spirits take years to fully remove. Sometimes they are part of necessary refinement for the person or others close to them and thus not the will of God to remove them at this time. And some people just like their... companions... and repeatedly invite them back.

[Davka]

We didn't have a food pyramid. We had the four food groups. Grains (white flour was as good as "wheat" flour), meat (nuts added later), fruits and veggies, and dairy products (which included eggs). At some point, they redid the whole thing and added sugars and fats.

I remember thinking that ham and pineapple pizza must be healthy because it had all of the food groups in it.

[BeNotDeceived]

Here are 5 of my favorite Big Ideas from "Fat Chance" by Robert Lustig. Hope you enjoy!

Robert Lustig is a Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology and a member of the Institute for Health Policy Studies at University of California, San Francisco. He has authored 120 peer-reviewed articles and 70 reviews and is a leading voice on childhood obesity. And, his YouTube video “Sugar: The Bitter Truth” has been viewed over 7 million times. Obesity is a global pandemic. It’s astonishing how rapidly it’s expanding. And it’s COMPLETELY preventable. Lustig has dedicated his career to helping us understand the causes and how to “beat the odds against sugar, processed food, obesity and disease.” Big Ideas we explore include: Meeting the Darth Vader of the Food Empire (“Hi, sugar!”), two hormones driving the show (insulin + leptin), which fat you need to worry about most (big belly vs. big butt fat!), why so many diets work (reduced sugar + fiber), exercise (best ROI in medicine) and voting with ever dollar we *don’t* spend.

Drink 150 daily calories from soda and you'll experience a 7 fold increase in your risk for diabetes.

Zevia Grape soda keeps disappearing from store shelves = please save some for me.

[JohnnyL]

An absolutely fitting quote from https://universalmodel.com/about/qa/:

"Q9: Why is the Universal Model not written and published from within the scientific establishment?
A: Today, most new scientific theories and papers submitted through the scientific establishment undergo a rigorous review process where establishment-trained peers decide whether the content is worthy and within the confined views of their respective field. In the past, many large changes in science through new discovery have not come from within the scientific establishment, but from individuals that used an outside perspective. New theories and papers within the establishment are typically complicated, built on old theories and written to the well-schooled peer groups that continue to believe in the old theories. The Universal Model is not about complicated theories; it is about simple models that demonstrate new natural laws, which are observable in nature. This method of science is a return to the original way scientific inquiry and study was conducted centuries ago."

///
This goes hand in hand with another experience of a group that solved schizophrenia and can heal it. further explanation?

No psychiatrists/psychologists/mental illness groups are interested because, well, everyone knows it needs to be treated with drugs.

Go to peakstates.com. It can take maybe 1/2 hour per voice, maybe faster. (Not years!!) You can buy a book and learn it, though it would be worth it to have an experienced licensed practitioner help.

[JohnnyL]

Oh, the book is "Silence the Voices: Discovering the Biology of Mind Chatter" by Grant McFetridge.

[larsenb]

https://www.infowars.com/the-number-one ... -colleges/

... Here’s a coda:

This one is big.

The so-called “chemical-imbalance theory of mental disorders” is dead. The notion that an underlying chemical imbalance in the brain causes mental disorders: dead.

Dr. Ronald Pies, the editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, laid the theory to rest in the July 11, 2011, issue of the Times with this staggering admission:

“In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion was always a kind of urban legend — never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.”

Boom.

However…urban legend? No. For decades the whole basis of psychiatric drug research, drug prescription, and drug sales has been: “we’re correcting a chemical imbalance in the brain.”

The problem was, researchers had never established a normal baseline for chemical balance. So they were shooting in the dark. Worse, they were faking a theory. Pretending they knew something when they didn’t.

In his 2011 piece in Psychiatric Times, Dr. Pies tries to protect his colleagues in the psychiatric profession with this fatuous remark:

“In the past 30 years, I don’t believe I have ever heard a knowledgeable, well-trained psychiatrist make such a preposterous claim [about chemical imbalance in the brain], except perhaps to mock it…the ‘chemical imbalance’ image has been vigorously promoted by some pharmaceutical companies, often to the detriment of our patients’ understanding.”

Absurd. First of all, many psychiatrists have explained and do explain to their patients that the drugs are there to correct a chemical imbalance.

And second, if all well-trained psychiatrists have known, all along, that the chemical-imbalance theory is a fraud…

…then why on earth have they been prescribing tons of drugs to their patients…

…since those drugs are developed on the false premise that they correct a chemical imbalance?

Here’s what’s happening. The honchos of psychiatry are seeing the handwriting on the wall. Their game has been exposed. They’re taking heavy flack on many fronts.

The chemical-imbalance theory is a fake. There are no defining physical tests for any of the 300 so-called mental disorders. All diagnoses are based on arbitrary clusters or menus of human behavior. The drugs are harmful, dangerous, toxic. Some of them induce violence. Suicide, homicide. Some of the drugs cause brain damage...

Frankly, I think a new entry should be placed in the DMS4 for 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' . . . . not that he is above criticism.

[JohnnyL]

On the other hand, when frauds are discovered the science community acknowledges them and the publications are retracted. This is something that is strength of the "Scientific Studies". Most of the frauds or mistakes are also caught by other scientists. This is how the cumulative nature of science works. In pseudoscience it's much more rare to see any retractions.

Meta science provides a good view into the state of science, at least when it is done.

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/308269/

The view isn't very good. Most frauds, mistakes, issues, are not caught, at least not in a timely way. Error rates are high. Even when bad science is shown to be so there remains an element that persists citing them. These issues are somewhat known but not with a desire to publicly acknowledged it's full depth for fear of losing funding and credibility.

From the article at theatlantic.com:
"—is misleading, exaggerated, and often flat-out wrong. He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed. His work has been widely accepted by the medical community; it has been published in the field’s top journals, where it is heavily cited; and he is a big draw at conferences. Given this exposure, and the fact that his work broadly targets everyone else’s work in medicine, as well as everything that physicians do and all the health advice we get, Ioannidis may be one of the most influential scientists alive. Yet for all his influence, he worries that the field of medical research is so pervasively flawed, and so riddled with conflicts of interest, that it might be chronically resistant to change—or even to publicly admitting that there’s a problem."

[larsenb]

An absolutely fitting quote from https://universalmodel.com/about/qa/:

"Q9: Why is the Universal Model not written and published from within the scientific establishment?
A: Today, most new scientific theories and papers submitted through the scientific establishment undergo a rigorous review process where establishment-trained peers decide whether the content is worthy and within the confined views of their respective field. In the past, many large changes in science through new discovery have not come from within the scientific establishment, but from individuals that used an outside perspective. New theories and papers within the establishment are typically complicated, built on old theories and written to the well-schooled peer groups that continue to believe in the old theories. The Universal Model is not about complicated theories; it is about simple models that demonstrate new natural laws, which are observable in nature. This method of science is a return to the original way scientific inquiry and study was conducted centuries ago."

///
This goes hand in hand with another experience of a group that solved schizophrenia and can heal it. No psychiatrists/psychologists/mental illness groups are interested because, well, everyone knows it needs to be treated with drugs.

I have a neighbor who was into the 'Universal Model' effort. She gave me a booklet giving an overview of it, written by a daughter of the guy who came up with the 'model', as I recall. I didn't see anything very compelling about it, and a LOT of conflation, oversimplification and lack of knowledge about fundamental aspects of my science.

Just as a refresher, though, can you cite me one or two 'natural laws' the fellow and/or his colaborative 'team' came up with?

[Jesef]

An absolutely fitting quote from https://universalmodel.com/about/qa/:

"Q9: Why is the Universal Model not written and published from within the scientific establishment?
A: Today, most new scientific theories and papers submitted through the scientific establishment undergo a rigorous review process where establishment-trained peers decide whether the content is worthy and within the confined views of their respective field. In the past, many large changes in science through new discovery have not come from within the scientific establishment, but from individuals that used an outside perspective. New theories and papers within the establishment are typically complicated, built on old theories and written to the well-schooled peer groups that continue to believe in the old theories. The Universal Model is not about complicated theories; it is about simple models that demonstrate new natural laws, which are observable in nature. This method of science is a return to the original way scientific inquiry and study was conducted centuries ago."

///
This goes hand in hand with another experience of a group that solved schizophrenia and can heal it. No psychiatrists/psychologists/mental illness groups are interested because, well, everyone knows it needs to be treated with drugs.

I have a neighbor who was into the 'Universal Model' effort. She gave me a booklet giving an overview of it, written by a daughter of the guy who came up with the 'model', as I recall. I didn't see anything very compelling about it, and a LOT of conflation, oversimplification and lack of knowledge about fundamental aspects of my science.

Just as a refresher, though, can you cite me one or two 'natural laws' the fellow and/or his colaborative 'team' came up with?

I’m a physics background. What’s your science, larsenb?

[larsenb]

An absolutely fitting quote from https://universalmodel.com/about/qa/:

"Q9: Why is the Universal Model not written and published from within the scientific establishment?
A: Today, most new scientific theories and papers submitted through the scientific establishment undergo a rigorous review process where establishment-trained peers decide whether the content is worthy and within the confined views of their respective field. In the past, many large changes in science through new discovery have not come from within the scientific establishment, but from individuals that used an outside perspective. New theories and papers within the establishment are typically complicated, built on old theories and written to the well-schooled peer groups that continue to believe in the old theories. The Universal Model is not about complicated theories; it is about simple models that demonstrate new natural laws, which are observable in nature. This method of science is a return to the original way scientific inquiry and study was conducted centuries ago."

///
This goes hand in hand with another experience of a group that solved schizophrenia and can heal it. No psychiatrists/psychologists/mental illness groups are interested because, well, everyone knows it needs to be treated with drugs.

I have a neighbor who was into the 'Universal Model' effort. She gave me a booklet giving an overview of it, written by a daughter of the guy who came up with the 'model', as I recall. I didn't see anything very compelling about it, and a LOT of conflation, oversimplification and lack of knowledge about fundamental aspects of my science.

Just as a refresher, though, can you cite me one or two 'natural laws' the fellow and/or his colaborative 'team' came up with?

I’m a physics background. What’s your science, larsenb?

MS Geology UofU - US Geological Survey, Oil and Gas companies, including Oil and Gas Service companies and consulting for same, and Newmont Gold.

[ParticleMan]

[JohnnyL]

http://amasci.com/supress1.html

Cognitive Processes and the Suppression of Sound Scientific Ideas
J. Sacherman 1997
Abstract

American and British history is riddled with examples of valid research and inventions which have been suppressed and derogated by the conventional science community. This has been of great cost to society and to individual scientists. Rather than furthering the pursuit of new scientific frontiers, the structure of British and American scientific institutions leads to conformity and furthers consensus-seeking. Scientists are generally like other people when it comes to the biases and self-justifications that cause them to make bad decisions and evade the truth. Some topics in science are 'taboo' subjects. Two examples are the field of psychic phenomenon and the field of new energy devices such as cold fusion. Journals, books and internet sites exist for those scientists who want an alternative to conformist scientific venues.

Although some scientific ideas are truely unfounded, the author of this paper will explore instances when valuable scientific ideas were unfairly reviled and rejected. This author will discuss the cognitive processes, including cognitive dissonance, conformity, and various biases which contribute to such suppression.