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

Question by Poyzin: Do you think whenever “studies” are published to the general public, there is a hidden agenda?
For example, this moronic study|main|dl1|link1|

Claims sugar causes cancer – if it’s 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 Nesquick
I wouldn’t past the powers that be to abuse these “studies” for the sake of profit.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

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

  • mike19772005:

    NESTLÉ® HOT POCKETS® Brand and Major League Gaming (MLG), the professional video game league, have announced a multi-year partnership that will give gamers increased access to the MLG experience and bring the excitement of competitive gaming to an even wider audience. The joint HOT POCKETS® Brand and MLG efforts will offer gamers of every skill level a multitude of ways to showcase their gaming achievements and enjoy the competitive gaming lifestyle. The partnership will include multi-dimensional content, personality, and consumer promotion programs that will roll out throughout 2010. Details of the program are still being finalized.

  • Myself:

    Yes. No.

    There are studies by organizations WITH an agenda. There are studies by non-partisan organizations with NO agenda, generally.

    I think medical studies do NOT fall into that category. There are different research organizations, therefore they will come up with differing opinions, on occason. For the most part thoough they agree.. soda is bad for you, smoking is bad for you etc. There is absolutely NO evidence to support your contention that trial attorneys are driving the cell-phone cancer scare or anything else. Are they salivating over possible lawsuits? That’s an entirely different thing. Some probably are. :)

  • Elsie:

    There is ALWAYS a hidden agenda. There is no such thing as an impartial study anymore. Undesirable results are simply deleted from the list of findings as unrelated to the study.

    To go along with it there is no unbiased reporting anymore. Journalism in America is yellow through and through. Every subject is picked based on what information the AP decides wants us to know and is designed to manipulate the viewer or reader to think a certain way.

    So while I wouldn’t say every study is fraudulent, I would also say if you never hear any stories with an opposing view point concerning the study, it’s safe to assume that the study is fraudulent to a certain extent.