Examples of bad science

[Timsup2nothin]

Why are humans so special? What about torturing animals in the name of science or blowing up a few hundred square miles or so?

I thought about that after I posted. Good point.

 

[Narz]

I think you can advance knowledge via hurting living beings. I've learned quite a bit doing stupid things to myself.

 

[Berzerker]

1) we have these long term comets, therefore we must be surrounded by them - hence the Oort Cloud

2) the asteroid belt is a failed planet, one that couldn't form because of Jupiter's gravity - how did Mars form and how did Jupiter form before planets closer to the sun?

3) How did the Earth get all this water? It was brought here when Jupiter was flinging water-bearing asteroids around ~4 billion years ago - the same asteroids that couldn't form a planet because of Jupiter's gravity

4) Comets brought us our water - nope, too much heavy water in comets... So back to 3)

 

[Kyriakos]

There was that saudi imam who proved how the earth does not revolve around itself

 

[Kaitzilla]

Not sure how I missed this thread.
We will start with an easy one.

1) Fat is bad is a myth.
The Food Pyramid is horrible advice being peddled by the government.


Link to video.

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2015/02/us-and-uk-dietary-advice-on-fats-should-not-have-been-introduced/

Introduction

Dietary guidelines were introduced in the US in 1977 (ref 1) and in the UK in 1983 (ref 2). The dietary recommendations in both cases were to reduce dietary fat intake; specifically to i) reduce overall fat consumption to 30% of total energy intake and ii) reduce saturated fat consumption to 10% of total energy intake.

The recommendations were made in the belief that dietary fat generally, and saturated fat particularly, caused coronary heart disease (CHD).

The evidence available to dietary committees at that time comprised epidemiological studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The most comprehensive population study undertaken was the Seven Countries Study by Keys et al (ref 3). This reported that CHD “tended to be related” to serum cholesterol values and that these in turn “tended to be related” to the proportion of calories provided by saturated fats in the diet (ref 4). Keys acknowledged that epidemiological studies could reveal relationships, not causation (ref 3). RCTs provide the best evidence (ref 5).

Although a number of reviews of RCTs have been undertaken (refs 6-8), no review has examined the RCT evidence available at the time dietary fat guidelines were introduced. Furthermore, these guidelines have not been changed since they were announced; making the validity of their evidence base as relevant as at the time of introduction.

In our paper, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to find the RCTs available to the committees and to review the findings.

The dietary trials

There were only five trials undertaken to test dietary fat interventions before the US recommendations were introduced in 1977 (ref 9-13). A further study was available to the UK committee, but was published after the US guidelines were introduced (ref 14).

None of these trials studied women. Only one of these trials included healthy subjects (ref 12). The other five were secondary studies, which means they only included men who had already had myocardial infarction. The death rate across all the studies was 30%, reflecting the fact that one of the single biggest causes of death is already having had a heart attack.

This flawed science has led to America becoming the fattest nation on Earth once these dietary guidelines caught on.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...the-us-got-fat-1985-2010-animated-map/274878/

If you cut fat to 30% of energy intake, that means you have to boost your carb or protein consumption to compensate.

 

[Kaitzilla]

2) Salt is bad for you is also a myth
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-end-the-war-on-salt/

This week a meta-analysis of seven studies involving a total of 6,250 subjects in the American Journal of Hypertension found no strong evidence that cutting salt intake reduces the risk for heart attacks, strokes or death in people with normal or high blood pressure. In May European researchers publishing in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that the less sodium that study subjects excreted in their urine—an excellent measure of prior consumption—the greater their risk was of dying from heart disease. These findings call into question the common wisdom that excess salt is bad for you, but the evidence linking salt to heart disease has always been tenuous.

Don't even get me started on the "science" surrounding eggs.
One week eggs are great, the next week they are the devil.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-berardi-phd/egss-and-health_b_3499583.html

At least butter is good for us now.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...-study-says-80s-advice-dairy-fats-flawed.html


The world grows ever more difficult to parody.

Link to video.

 

[warpus]

There is a particular person in our office who often participates in our pot lucks.. the problem is that she refuses to put any salt at all (it seems) into her dishes.. as such they always taste bland. The texture is there, but there is no flavour. You need salt for that, eh.

 

[CavLancer]

Experts are the pits. I used to listen to their garbage, like don't eat salt and eggs, but no more. Bacon = good. I wonder about all the folks taking statins to lower cholesterol, the European experts say that cholesterol is normal and not bad. I listen to experts that tell me what I want to hear, there's a 50/50 chance they're right. Still looking for a doc who puts an instruction on meds "Take this med X times a day with beer." That doc would be my doc for life.

 

[brennan]

I'd like to nominate Kaitzillas posts #65 & 66.

 

[tetley]

Still looking for a doc who puts an instruction on meds "Take this med X times a day with beer." That doc would be my doc for life.

Which would be, in itself, bad science. Holding out for someone to tell you what you want to hear is the opposite. It might happen, though, that a doc might recommend taking a med with red wine.

We are seeking the TRUTH. What we WANT the truth to be should have no bearing in our quest to find it.

 

[CavLancer]

That assumes that you know the truth, and that means you have bought all the programming and believe all the outright l i e s about not taking meds with beer. I know I always feel better taking meds with beer, much better!

 

[jackelgull]

I listen to experts that tell me what I want to hear.

And thus the modern Republican party was born and Faux news became a thing.

 

[CavLancer]

What could be more fair and balanced than believing what you wish to be true? The alternative is believing an expert paid to support this or that because some other corporate or political schmuck wishes it was true. I say cut out the middle man and live a little. There's a reason 9 out of 10 dentists believe in every single toothpaste out there. That, and the more crap one spews on a subject the more people think they know what they're talking about. That's why we can't take meds with beer, or eat eggs or bacon or salt, because some jerk trying to make a name for himself got all puffed up and got some air time being expert. Beats the hell out of working I'd guess. Screw em.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Would alchemy qualify as bad science?

 

[Kaitzilla]

That assumes that you know the truth, and that means you have bought all the programming and believe all the outright l i e s about not taking meds with beer. I know I always feel better taking meds with beer, much better!

Well, as long as your are not mixing alcohol with painkillers.
That is a good way to end up dead!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynn-r-goldman/painkillers-alcohol_b_2253343.html

Prescription drugs are safe when taken as directed, but all drugs can trigger side effects. And drugs like oxycodone come with a very thin margin for error. Oxycodone is a central nervous system depressant and when taken with alcohol can slow a person's breathing to the point that it stops. Sadly, that is what happened to Ben Gupta.

But he had like 10 beers right?

Gupta's blood alcohol level was just .04 the night of his death, far below the legal limit. Yet the mixture killed him.

Er, more like 1 beer.

 

[Kaitzilla]

And thus the modern Republican party was born and Faux news became a thing.

Really?!

There is a decay in the quality of Science™ lately.
The evidence is everywhere.

Check out this Glaring Example!
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/12/health/blood-pressure-study.html?src=recg&_r=0

Lower Blood Pressure Guidelines Could Be ‘Lifesaving,’ Federal Study Says


By GINA KOLATASEPT. 11, 2015

Declaring they had “potentially lifesaving information,” federal health officials said on Friday that they were ending a major study more than a year early because it has already conclusively answered a question cardiologists have puzzled over for decades: How low should blood pressure go?

The answer: way lower than the current guidelines.

For years doctors have been uncertain what the optimal goal should be for patients with high blood pressure. The aim of course is to bring it down, but how far and how aggressively remained a mystery. There are trade-offs — risks and side effects from drugs — and there were lingering questions about whether older patients needed somewhat higher blood pressure to push blood to the brain.

The study found that patients who were assigned to reach a systolic blood pressure goal below 120 — far lower than current guidelines of 140, or 150 for people over 60 — had their risk of heart attacks, heart failure and strokes reduced by a third and their risk of death reduced by nearly a quarter.

The study, called Sprint, randomly assigned more than 9,300 men and women ages 50 and over who were at high risk of heart disease or had kidney disease to of two systolic blood pressure targets: less than 120 millimeters of mercury, which is lower than any guideline ever suggested, or less than 140. (Systolic pressure is the higher of the two blood pressure numbers and represents pressure on blood vessels when the heart contracts.)

The study was expected to conclude in 2017, but considering the results of great importance to public health, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute announced them Friday morning, saying a paper with the data would be published within a few months.

A study to answer a decades-long standing medical uncertainty was canceled 2 years early.
Because they already have the results they wanted?

Appalling!

“This study provides potentially lifesaving information,” Dr. Gary H. Gibbons, director of the institute, said in a statement announcing the decision.

Nearly 79 million adults in this country — one of three — have high blood pressure, and half of those being treated for it still have systolic pressures over 140.

“This study will shake things up,” predicted Dr. J. F Michael Gaziano, a professor of medicine at Harvard who was not involved with the study. He anticipated that it would have the same effect on people’s thinking about blood pressure as studies of about lowering cholesterol levels did when they showed that, contrary to what many had thought, the lower the number the better.

Funny conclusions, considering the paper with the data won't be published for months.
Was the cholesterol study canceled at the 1st sign of "lower is better" too, far before the study was due to conclude?

“It is outstanding news,” said Dr. Mark Creager, president of the American Heart Association and director of the Heart and Vascular Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, who was not involved in the study. “It will serve as a road map and will save a significant amount of lives.”

If guidelines are changed because of this study — as blood pressure experts expect that they will be — an already falling death rate from heart attacks and stroke could drop even more, said Dr. Jackson T. Wright Jr., a blood pressure expert at Case Western Reserve University and University Hospitals Case Medical Center, and a study investigator. Because cardiovascular disease is still the leading cause of death in the United States, a change in blood pressure goals could also reduce the nation’s overall mortality rate, he said.

It is gradually becoming very clear that federal guidelines are being drawn up and implemented with half-assed studies of dubious quality.
Just look at all the conclusions these scientists are drawing from data to be published months from now, from a study canceled years early because the results were so exciting. O_O

The study ventured into unknown territory that some had found a bit frightening. A systolic pressure that is naturally 120 might be good, but it is quite another matter to artificially drag pressure down so low with drugs.

Reaching a target that low would mean giving people more and more medications, and the side effects could cancel any benefit. Older people might be especially vulnerable to ill effects of a much lower blood pressure since many already take an array of drugs for chronic conditions, which might interact. A very low blood pressure could lead to dizziness and falls. Twenty-eight percent of the subjects in the new study were over age 75.

Ah, now we get into the doubts.
All fine objections I'd say, but all utterly meaningless.

The answer has already been found.
The guidelines are already being changed.
The science is settled.


In the future, I expect "ideal" blood pressure will be found to be around 100.
That way 95% of Americans can be diagnosed with "high" blood pressure.
Then the doctors, all purely ethical scientists, can make trillions of dollars treating their patients and selling trillions of dollars in drugs.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Then we got the Science™ being pushed in school cafeterias.
Where the federal scientist's guidelines have enormous influence due to the threat of federal school funding being pulled.

No fat. No salt. Low calories.
Let's find out what happened.

http://patriotupdate.com/thanks-to-...-lose-their-jobs-kids-are-refusing-her-meals/

Thousands of school children are throwing their school lunches away every day. Tons and tons of food is being hauled from our schools on a daily basis and our children are going hungry because the food is worse than prison meals. These students and parents are outraged even starting a national Twitter hashtag #ThanksMichelleObama as a satire to show their disgust.

Just look at some of those school lunches.
Public school is rapidly turning into a communal 12 year prison sentence.
To teach kids what life will be like to live in a prison state later I imagine.

49% of schools in the USA have had to fire cafeteria workers.
Not enough kids eating the food anymore.

 

[brennan]

Anational pollshows thatmore than 80 percentof Americans support healthy school meals consisting of more fruit and vegetables and less high calorie and sodium food choices, requirements outlined in theHealthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act— a law that authorized the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to set nutritional standards for food sold and distributed in schools and expanded access to healthy lunch to more than 115,000 U.S. children.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/08/19/3693064/people-support-american-nutritional-standards/

 

[Kaitzilla]

Would alchemy qualify as bad science?

I like to think it's when a person takes a pill for birth control.

And one of the "side effects" on the label we don't read and throw away says "may cause liver tumors and fatal internal bleeding."
http://consumerist.com/2009/04/16/9-legal-drugs-with-extremely-disturbing-side-effects/

 

[Kaitzilla]

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/08/19/3693064/people-support-american-nutritional-standards/

Absolute utter garbage.
Insane propaganda.

Of course a survey asking parents if kid's meals should be "healthier" will get 80% approval.

I can gladly make a school lunch meal that meets these guidelines.
And I will starve those children to death making them eat it.
They will waste away as skeletons, screaming for calories to move/breathe that I will deny them.

Because calories are bad.




I will quickly demonstrate my argument from pictures alone.
The picture from your link:




The picture from my link:



Now which one would you say is reality, and which one is fantasy propaganda?