Do you think whenever “scientific” studies are published to the general public, there is a hidden agenda?

Question by Poyzin: Do you think whenever “scientific” studies are published to the general public, there is a hidden agenda?
For example, this moronic study http://www.aolnews.com/health/article/study-in-singapore-links-sugary-soft-drinks-and-pancreatic-cancer/19348936?icid=main|main|dl1|link1|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fhealth%2Farticle%2Fstudy-in-singapore-links-sugary-soft-drinks-and-pancreatic-cancer%2F19348936

Claims sugar causes cancer – if the sugar is in the form of soda pop. So you find out where the study came from and it’s from the government of Singapore – the country that whips you with 7 foot long Ratton canes soaked in water on the bare assss if you spit on the sidewalk.
You obviously can’t trust THAT study.

Similarly, the global warming scam – government-sponsored “scientists’ using back-filled data and 100 iterations to reach the pre-determined “conclusion”.

The cell phone cancer scare, funded by trial lawyers, salivating over the next “asbestos” type lawsuit lottery.

It never stops. Should we conclude that all “scientific” studies that are widely published on lowest common denominator sites like AOL and Yahoo news are fraudulent?

Best answer:

Answer by Ratz
Uh, no, that study is not “published” to the public, it’s published in a science journal ( http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/ ) and reported on AOL. You aren’t a very good reader as the study acknowledges,

“But the study isn’t a definitive answer. Out of the 60,000 individuals studied, 140 developed pancreatic cancer. Of those, 18 cases occurred in patients who’d consumed large quantities of soda, 12 occurred in those who drank soda occasionally, and 110 occurred in those who never consumed the sugary beverages.

In their analysis, the researchers acknowledge that the small numbers limit the power of the data, and “giv[e] potential to a chance association.” The team also cites four previous studies that found little or no connection between soda and pancreatic cancer.

There are a handful of definitive or suggested causes for pancreatic cancer, making this study even more difficult to interpret. Aside from red meat consumption, smoking and diabetes, risk factors include genetics, ethnicity, old age, obesity and even excessive alcohol consumption.”

Add your own answer in the comments!

One Response to “Do you think whenever “scientific” studies are published to the general public, there is a hidden agenda?”

  • Jeff M:

    Global warming is not a scam as much as deniers would like to believe or as much as they persist in speaking about the misquoted and out of context emails that they read. I doubt it is the sugar that is causing the tumor growth in studies as there is much worse ingredients, some of them very acidic, in many types of soda pop. I’m also sure that you’ve heard correlation does not always equal causation. Not sure about the cell phone cancer scare. Personally instead of going to sites like yahoo or AOL I prefer going to actual news sources.

Categories