tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post3430605922146274754..comments2024-03-28T08:06:43.198-04:00Comments on The Silicon Graybeard: Junk Science of Both KindsSiGraybeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280583031339062059noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-61340258096459844052019-03-29T00:06:55.493-04:002019-03-29T00:06:55.493-04:00The whole egg/butter/trans fats (male or female? A...The whole egg/butter/trans fats (male or female? And how do you dress your salad?) nonsense is, I believe, all based on the agro _and_ pharma corporations that have been funding much of the scientific and medical research to "prove" a specific result, either in favor of their product, or to make a competitor's product look bad.<br /><br />I raised chickens and milk goats years ago, and discovered back then (late '80s, early '90s) that some people respond to dietary cholesterol and some (the majority, IIRC) don't. I ate eggs everyday, as you can imagine, even though I did sell many dozens to a local co-op. I had my cholesterol/lipids checked after a two month period without eating any eggs, and my numbers were the same as when eating them every day.<br /><br />Now, thanks to the whole global warming/climate change scam, scientists can no longer be trusted to actually use the scientific method, let alone search for the truth, as opposed to a desired outcome. Yes, there are still many true scientists who will publish the truth, even if it wasn't what they had hoped it would be, but far too many of them prostitute their names and their results for monetary benefit, with research funded by companies with a wallet in the game.<br /><br />The current use of "digital modeling" instead of real world observations and measurements has led to a new industry where "scientists" use "CGI" (Computer Generated Integers) to produce the results they desire. Some of them have even admitted that they know the numbers are false, but make the statement that it would be better for the environment and the world if the numbers were accepted as being true. <br /><br />In almost every case the "cui bono" question provides the real answers.Reg Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14099612693763932005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-46986718802319995632019-03-28T16:07:32.759-04:002019-03-28T16:07:32.759-04:00You're both right on.
One of the things that ...You're both right on.<br /><br />One of the things that shocked me was when I found out that there is a "big vegan" or "big vegetarian" out there and they have tremendous influence over these studies. How much of what we think is bad and good comes from Kellogg's, or the grain industry? (big agra?) A lot. <br /><br />I started paying more attention to this in the mid-90s. We were totally indoctrinated into the lowfat, almost vegetarian lifestyle. Then my wife got cancer. Along with the starter kit, we get a dietary advise brochure from the Cancer Society that says things like, "hard boiled eggs make a good snack that keep your protein up", "remember, your immune system is almost 100% protein" and "too dry? Add a tablespoon of butter" It made me start researching more and believing less of those studies. Then I started reading the actual studies and applying what I know of statistics. <br /><br />If any company had fudged the data like Ancel Keys, who started the whole diet/heart thing, fudged his, the main people would be doing hard time in Leavenworth. <br />SiGraybeardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280583031339062059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-49649605253187449022019-03-28T14:18:50.116-04:002019-03-28T14:18:50.116-04:00"ACTUAL science is a dying specialty being re..."ACTUAL science is a dying specialty being replaced with agenda driven pseudoscience."<br /><br />"I don't rely on research grants or special interest lobbies for my income." Bingo!!!<br /><br />When I read about these "studies" that claim something is now "bad" for you, I try to find the source of the funding for the study. In quite a few instances, you'll find that the funding was provided by a competing entity or industry. I think back to the saccharin debacle from back in 60's?/70's. Not only did the saccharin experiment feed the rats 1000's of times more saccharin than they should have gotten based on the rat's body weight compared to a human, but the "study" was funded by BIG SUGAR.<br /><br />Low and behold 50 or so years after the initial "bad" result study on saccharin, a new study, from the early 00's if memory serves, proclaimed saccharin was not harmful to humans ... or rats.<br /><br />NemoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-51612258955296867202019-03-27T01:02:59.340-04:002019-03-27T01:02:59.340-04:00I started to have my doubts about "X will kil...I started to have my doubts about "X will kill you" studies a long while ago.<br /><br />When microwave ovens first became popular and cheap enough for domestic use, there was a study published saying that heating milk (particularly for babies) would produce toxins and everyone s going to DIE!!! DIE I tells ya!!! OK, I took a while to dig out the original report and the methodology employed. The researchers had sealed some milk in a closed pressure container and microwaved it for (if memory serves me correctly) about 1 1/2 hours.<br /><br />Now, if you heat any organic stuff in a closed container under pressure (just like a pressure cooker) at likely 140 degrees C for that length of time, then naturally you will get cross polymerisation of the molecules and something not particularly good for you - caesin glue is made from milk - but just HOW bad is it for your health? I don't know but to tell mothers not to microwave their babies milk for 15 to 20 seconds based on that experiment is ridiculous.<br /><br />Similarly, tea is bad for you. There is enough tannin in 12 gallons of tea to kill a fly, so stop drinking it immediately. Or perhaps not.<br /><br />Only Kalifornia has taken this to heart and extremes where everything is harmful to human health in a sufficiently large quantity.<br /><br />However, it is not just eggs. I can never remember if red wine is good for you this week/month or not ... And so it goes. <br /><br />One fo my friends is as fit as a fiddle and is literally piano wire and whipcord, exercising and watching his diet. He's 64 and was recently taken to hospital for a mild heart attack. I'm convinced that genetics plays a much higher role in your health than worrying over the number of eggs that you eat in a month.<br /><br />But I don't rely on research grants or special interest lobbies for my income.<br /><br />Phil BAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-54658023912010287512019-03-26T08:57:06.689-04:002019-03-26T08:57:06.689-04:00OK - this made me laugh.OK - this made me laugh.SiGraybeardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280583031339062059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-70092814233029098782019-03-26T07:30:16.271-04:002019-03-26T07:30:16.271-04:00Studies have shown that 5% of random data is stati...Studies have shown that 5% of random data is statistically significant to P.05.McChuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10243337792601085456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-78707460992794123592019-03-26T07:28:58.711-04:002019-03-26T07:28:58.711-04:00The same people who say "I was born this way&...The same people who say "I was born this way" also say "all behavior is learned". 'Nuff said.McChuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10243337792601085456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-89331944256287418162019-03-26T06:12:27.873-04:002019-03-26T06:12:27.873-04:00So you've gender-classified your dogs and cats...So you've gender-classified your dogs and cats? That could be considered animal cruelty in some parts of America.LLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05538854359365988863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-83896041907536308072019-03-26T04:23:53.175-04:002019-03-26T04:23:53.175-04:00ACTUAL research costs money.....and is hard work. ...ACTUAL research costs money.....and is hard work. It's much easier and cheaper to take a bunch of numbers someone else came up with, massage them, squeeze them and<br />trot them around for a while and then come to a conclusion then call it a result.<br />ACTUAL science is a dying specialty being replaced with agenda driven pseudoscience. Dannoreply@blogger.com