tagged w/ Bad Science
-
A significant milestone in the fight against fluoride emerged quietly and without major notice from the mainstream news last week. After decades of ignoring the research about the dangers and hailing water fluoridation as one of the 10 greatest health achievements of the 20th Century (CDC), the government is calling for a reduction in the amount of fluoride it adds to public water supplies, citing its negative effect on teeth (dental fluorosis). For the first time since 1962, the standard for fluoride will be lowered from 1.2 to 0.7 milligrams per liter.
Because fluoride from water builds up over time in the human body, this reduction will not eliminate the dangers of fluoride– which include risk of bone cancer, bone fractures, thyroid disorder, brain inflammation, lowered IQ and mental functions, sterility or reduced fertility and more.
Continued at:
http://www.infowars.com/bombshell-government-admits-fluoride-hurting-children/A significant milestone in the fight against fluoride emerged quietly and without... more
-
-
Dagum
-
added this
-
1 year ago
- |
-
-
One of the indirect though no less serious consequences of marijuana prohibition is the mischaracterization of clinical research in order to support the federal government’s bankrupt policy.
For example, last week the Obama administration called for the expansion of states to enact laws criminalizing motorists who drive with the residual presence of drug or inactive drug metabolites in their body. In the case of marijuana, these policies are especially egregious because its metabolites may remain present in urine for weeks or months after past use. Further, studies have consistently reported that the presence of marijuana metabolites is not associated with psychomotor impairment or an elevated risk of motor accident — a result that should be self-evident given that cannabis metabolites only form in urine after the drug’s primary psychoactive compound, THC, has been broken down and converted by the body over a period of several hours.
So how does the federal government justify its call for implementing such an inane and discriminatory policy? Simple. By claiming that supposed ‘marijuana and driving menace’ is so prevalent and severe that lawmakers have no other choice but to enact such inflexible and nonsensical policies to halt it.
Now I’ve written on the subject of cannabis use and psychomotor performance numerous times, including recently authoring the white paper Cannabis and Driving: A Scientific and Rational Review. In short the science says this: there appears to be a positive association between very recent cannabis exposure and a gradually increased risk of vehicle accident; however, this elevated risk is below the risk presented by drivers who have consumed even small (read ‘legal’) quantities of alcohol.
Does this conclusion support the blanket criminalization of marijuana or the enactment of the sort of zero-tolerant per se driving laws outlined above? No more so than such a conclusion advocates for a return to alcohol prohibition.
So what’s the administration to do? That’s easy — just fund more research. And what to do when that federally funded research fails to produce the results they were looking for? That’s even easier: just claim that they do anyway.
Such is the case with a just-published study in the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs assessing the psychomotor skills of subjects on a battery of off-road driving simulator tests both before and after smoking marijuana (and/or placebo).
During the course study, subjects were asked to respond to various simulated events associated with automobile crash risk — such as avoiding a driver who was entering an intersection illegally, deciding to stop or go through changing traffic lights, responding to the presence of emergency vehicles, avoiding colliding a dog who entered into traffic, and maintaining safe driving during a secondary (in-the-car) auditory distraction. Subjects performed these tests sober, and then shortly (30 minutes) after smoking a single marijuana cigarettes (or placebo).
So how did the subjects perform? Much to the apparent chagrin of the investigators, just fine.
“No sex differences or interactions of sex and marijuana were observed for any of the driving tasks. Participants receiving active marijuana decreased their speed more so than those receiving the placebo cigarette during a distracted section of the drive. An overall effect of marijuana was seen for the mean speed during the distracted driving (PASAT section). [N]o other changes in driving performance were found.”
In short, subjects had no greater likelihood of responding adversely to any of the simulated events after smoking marijuana than they had prior to consuming cannabis.
Of course, these are not the sort of results that NIDA — who provided funding for the study — or the Drug Czar’s office are looking for. Therefore, the authors are required find some outcome — any outcome — supporting the administration’s claim that driving under the influence of cannabis is a serious and significant threat. How do they do that in this case? Simple; by stating subjects lack of impairment was, in fact, implicit evidence of their impairment!
“Persons smoking the placebo cigarette showed an improvement in performance of the PASAT during the driving task, likely attributable to practice effects. Under the influence of marijuana, however, no differences were found between PASAT performance during practice testing and while driving. Participants who smoked active marijuana decreased their speed during this section of the drive, suggesting additional compensatory skills were used.”
In other words, the authors are claiming that because subjects on one specific test (the auditory distraction test) drove more slowly when completing the task after smoking marijuana than they did prior to consuming cannabis, but otherwise manifested no difference in the outcome of said test — or on any other test for that matter — that this is somehow strong evidence that marijuana has a significant and adverse impact on driving.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Under the influence of active marijuana, participants exhibited increased drowsiness, although this did not appear to affect their driving [emphasis mine]. Participants under the influence of marijuana failed to benefit from prior experience on a distracter task [what the authors want the reader to emphasize] as evidenced by a decrease in speed and a failure to show expected practice effects. This study supports the existing literature that marijuana does affect simulated driving performance [ditto], particularly on complex tasks such as divided attention. It is anticipated that many teenagers and young adults driving under the influence of marijuana are doing so while conversing with friends in the car, listening to music, talking on the cell phone and/or text messaging others. These behaviors divide the driver’s attention and are particularly dangerous under the influence of marijuana [what the authors really, really want the reader to emphasize].”
And that, my friends, is just the latest example of how marijuana prohibition corrupts, and how absolute marijuana prohibition corrupts absolutely.One of the indirect though no less serious consequences of marijuana prohibition is... more
-
-
This leaves no doubt about how immoral business is. I can't even quote all of the blatant PR written in this piece, but have been busy spreading a bit of knowledge there. There was no mention of farmer lawsuits, patent law forcing the buying of seeds, pushing out NON GMO farmers, intimidation of scientists, transgenic contamination, test results regarding their BT crops, Indian farmer suicides, deforestation of the Amazon, farmers in Latin America being pushed off their land for soy monocultures, Monsanto in Iraq and Afghanistan, Plan Colombia, government bribes, revolving Washington DC policy, nor pending lawsuits regarding PCBs and the Supreme Court. Just one big wet kiss for Monsanto. I am actually nauseated after reading it. So if you are so inclined, make a visit over there and read what Forbes had to say in their fluff piece. This is what billions in profits gotten from the blood and biodiversity of this planet will buy you. Oh, and of course, no sugary sweet ad would be complete unless those who actually know the science and who care about the planet were called "enemies."
excerpt:
"The enemies haven't disappeared entirely. A 2009 Union of Concerned Scientists study calculated that only 14% of recent corn-crop yield increases are due to genetically engineered Bt corn. Roundup-ready corn and soy seeds don't increase crop yield at all, it found. Genetic engineering of crops "is inherently risky," says Greenpeace Policy Director Marco Contiero. "We cannot recall crops that are released into the environment." He says Monsanto's dominance decreases seed biodiversity."
Enemies? Shame on you, Forbes.This leaves no doubt about how immoral business is. I can't even quote all of the... more
-
-
Ben Goldacre, the Guardian's science columnist who has dedicated his career to debunking all of the nonsense science that gets reported has posted on his website a column explaining that swine flu could actually be as big as the media says it is - we just don't know. He explains how the media have been ringing him expecting him to say it's all just hype but he can't as there does appear to be some genuine risk. Scary stuff.
Should we start to worry now?Ben Goldacre, the Guardian's science columnist who has dedicated his career to... more
-
-
"Researchers found the stress of thinking caused overeating with heavy thinkers seeking out more calories.
The research team, supervised by Dr Angelo Tremblay, measured the spontaneous food intake of 14 students after each of three tasks. The first was relaxing in a sitting position, the second reading and summarizing a text, and finally completing a series of memory, attention, and vigilance tests on the computer.
After 45 minutes at each activity, participants were invited to eat as much as they wanted from a buffet.
The researchers had already discovered that each session of intellectual work requires only three calories more than the rest period.
However, despite the low energy cost of mental work, the students spontaneously consumed 203 more calories after summarizing a text and 253 more calories after the computer tests. This represents a 23.6 per cent and 29.4 per cent increase, respectively, compared with the rest period.
Blood samples taken before, during, and after each session revealed that intellectual work causes much bigger fluctuations in glucose and insulin levels than rest periods.
Jean-Philippe Chaput, the study's main author, said: "These fluctuations may be caused by the stress of intellectual work, or also reflect a biological adaptation during glucose combustion."
The body could be reacting to these fluctuations by spurring food intake in order to restore its glucose balance, the only fuel used by the brain.""Researchers found the stress of thinking caused overeating with heavy thinkers... more
-
-
"Researchers have found evidence that in certain people sneezing can be triggered by sexual fantasy. The news could lead to raised eyebrows on the bus or train next time a passenger snorts into a tissue.
Both men and women are susceptible to the problem, which may be inherited. It is thought to be closely linked to the way sunlight can make some people sneeze.
Dr Mahmood Bhutta, an ear, nose and throat specialist at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, launched the study after seeing a patient who suffered "uncontrollable" sneezing fits every time he had a sexual thought ..."
Uh, huh ... you're getting sick ... riiiiight. Lol."Researchers have found evidence that in certain people sneezing can be triggered... more
-
-
British scientists have uncovered the truth behind one of modern culture’s greatest mysteries: why little girls play with pink toys. Is it because toy companies flood whole store aisles with the color? Or because well-meaning relatives shower girl babies with pink blankets and clothing? Nope. According to the men in lab coats, it’s purely biological.
Apparently, women are hardwired to like pink because our cavewoman foremothers spent their days gathering red leaves and berries amongst the trees while their husbands were out hunting. Later, women needed to notice red-faced babies and blushing boyfriends. And why do men like blue? Because it’s the color of the sky.
This evolutionary just-so story takes up three pages of a 2007 issue of Current Biology. To back up the assertion that pink is a universal girly preference worth examining, the authors refer to a 1985 study finding that little girls use more pink and red crayons in their drawings than little boys do.
Dig further, however, and the story completely falls apart. British women do prefer pink, but the author’s claim of a “robust, cross-cultural sex difference” turns out to be neither. The scientists compared British natives with Chinese immigrants to Britain, and glossed over the differences. For example: The girliest color in the British results, a purplish-pink, was in fact the Chinese men’s favorite.
Nowhere do scientific findings get more mangled than when they’re about the differences between men and women. According to the science pages, women aren’t just biologically hardwired to prefer pink to blue. We’re also predisposed to backstab one another in the workplace, cry in the boardroom, and have both lower iqs and less of a sense of humor than men.
Some misleading stories come from bad science, where the study authors’ conclusions aren’t supported by their own data. Others are well-conducted studies whose conclusions mutate upon contact with the mainstream media. Newspapers and websites are prone to playing fast and loose with their reports on studies, often neglecting to reveal salient facts about a study’s sample group or methodology.
The fact is that science articles aren’t designed to be read by non-scientists. College and grad students in the sciences are trained in how to do it: They review papers and discuss them in journal clubs; learn how to question methodologies (Is that sample really big enough? Was that the right test to use?); and learn how to be critical of authors’ interpretations (Do the results really mean what they say they mean?). Students also know to look at context for each study, looking up previous papers on the subject, reviewing the authors’ previous work, and searching out any evidence of bias that might color a study’s findings
< I read this article a while ago and did not notice how long it was until i printed it because i devoured it. to all my fellow girls out there, read and remember the next time a crappy article surfaces explaining, scientifically of course, the differences between the sexes >
British scientists have uncovered the truth behind one of modern culture’s... more
-
-
Ever wonder why the studies purporting to ‘prove’ marijuana’s health risks only recruit subjects who smoke pot 24 hours a day, seven days a week?
"Heavy marijuana use shrinks brain parts
via Reuters
Brain scans showed the hippocampus and amygdala were smaller in men who were heavy marijuana users compared to nonusers. … The men had smoked at least five marijuana cigarettes daily for on average 20 years."
The answer: If they didn’t, there wouldn’t be any purported risks left to write about.
I mean, seriously, imagine if these scientists had tried recruiting 15 subjects who drank at least five shots of vodka every day for 20 years? That is, if they could find 15 subjects who were still alive.
"Marijuana may up heart attack, stroke risk
via Reuters
Heavy marijuana use can boost blood levels of a particular protein, perhaps raising a person’s risk of a heart attack or stroke, U.S. government researchers said on Tuesday. …The marijuana users in the study averaged smoking 78 to 350 marijuana cigarettes per week."
The study did not look at whether the heavy marijuana users actually had heart disease.
So here we go again. Three-hundred and fifty joints per week?! Who are these people? And what’s with the caveat at the end of the story? If the purpose of the study is to assess whether there might be a link between ridiculously heavy pot use and heart disease, then why not, you know, look to see whether the subjects actually suffered from heart disease? (Likely answer: aside from the abnormal protein level, the patients were probably otherwise healthy.)
Bottom line: smoking pot all day, every day probably isn’t good for you (though I find it interesting that, even among the most prolific pot users, most of the herb’s purported dangers are either speculative or are only apparent on hyper-sensitive brain scans and multi-tiered neurocognitive tests). Fortunately, 99.9 percent of pot smokers don’t behave this way.
And no, it’s not prohibition that curbs their use habits; it’s the recognition that too much pot is not conducive to an otherwise healthy, responsible lifestyle (just as pounding five shots a day wouldn’t be conducive to, well, life).
So what lesson can be learned from the two studies above (aside from the fact that our government has no interest in investigating the health of ordinary cannabis consumers)? It’s that pot, like alcohol, is best consumed in moderation, and that pot prohibition — even when compared to the excessive use of the drug itself — still poses the greatest threat to health.
By Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy DirectorEver wonder why the studies purporting to ‘prove’ marijuana’s health... more
-
-
Britain's leading scientific expert on alternative therapies has criticised Boots, the high street chemist, for becoming the country's largest seller of quack medicine.
Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine at Exeter University, is set to criticise the company for selling more than 50 homeopathic remedies, which are shown by clinical trials to be no more effective than sugar pills. 34 of the remedies are sold under the 'Boots' brand, across its 1,500 UK stores.
Ernst argues that by failing to tell customers that its homeopathic medicines are ineffective in clinical trials and contain no active ingredients, Boots is breaching ethical guidelines drawn up by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain.
Homeopathic remedies are highly diluted solutions that often contain no trace of their original ingredients. Instead, homeopaths claim the treatments work because "healing energy" is imprinted into the water when it is shaken. In 2006, Sir Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, said the possibility of a medicine working in this way would "entail some fundamentally new scientific principle with amazingly broad ramifications".
"Very few people are aware that the underlying principles of homeopathy are totally scientifically implausible, and even fewer people are aware that the trials show it doesn't do anything," said Ernst.
But with the UK market for homeopathic medicine worth around £38m last year, is this a matter of consumer choice? Should customers be able to purchase what is in effect a placebo - or are they being conned out of their money by a trusted chemists? It seems the company is going back to its 19th century roots in selling this guff to credulous customers... Britain's leading scientific expert on alternative therapies has criticised... more
-
-
The Expelled movie producers are, as we know from copious evidence, lying and evil.
Nefarious even. They placed ads for their antiscience propaganda piece on The Science Channel and NPR.
Evil does as evil is, so I’m not surprised they would try that. But I am really shocked that TSC and NPR would take their money. This movie is totally 100% against the missions of both The Science Channel and National Public Radio. It is seriously like taking the KKK’s money for ads, or from NAMBLA. Why would you do that?
I have not seen the TSC ads, but I was pretty surprised when I was poking around the NPR site and an ad for the movie popped up in a media player (I was looking for a podcast about the LHC, a scientific triumph, making the ad that much more appalling). PZ mentions it as well.
What they heck were they thinking?
I am too busy right now to draft up appropriate letters, but feel free to do so yourselves (after due diligence if you so desire). If I get a chance I’ll be taking care of that when I get back from Europe.The Expelled movie producers are, as we know from copious evidence, lying and evil.... more
-
-
Anum
-
added this
-
3 years ago
- |
-
In 2006, ABC News discovered that the "clinical study" that the company had been touting as proof that its product cured colds was not really very clinical, nor much of a study.
"There was no clinic, no scientists and no doctors," ABC reported. "The man who ran things said he had lots of clinical trial experience. He added that he had a degree from Indiana University, but the school says he never graduated."
That report sparked a class-action lawsuit. Now, while not admitting any wrongdoing, the company has agreed to settle the lawsuit, and it will offer Airborne customers a refund on sales, paying out $23 million.
You can claim your refund by filling out a form at this Web site. Airborne will refund the full price of all Airborne products for which you have a proof of purchase.
But if you don't have a receipt, you can still get a refund on up to six products. The company will give you $10.50 per box of Seasonal Airborne, $2.75 per box of Gummi Airborne, and $6.99 for all other Airborne products.
Since the ABC report, the company has laid off claims that its product "cures" colds. Now the word "cold" appears nowhere on its packaging, and the company's CEO, Elise Donahue, told ABC that "We don't know if Airborne is a ... cure for the common cold." Rather, she said, the product "helps your body build a healthy immune system." In 2006, ABC News discovered that the "clinical study" that the company had... more
-
-
Sense About Science swiftly debunks a few myths about claims made for the slew of 'cosmeceutical' creams available. Processes such as 'dermagenesis', and active ingredients like pentapeptides and nanoparticles are claimed to 'refuel' the skin - so the organization decided to see what would happen if they telephoned the beauty companies to ask for a little advice on fine lines and plump skin... Sense About Science swiftly debunks a few myths about claims made for the slew of... more
-
-
We've all heard that reading in low light will ruin our eye sight, or that we're supposed to drink eight glasses of water a day, or that turkey makes us drowsy. All believable if we only are able to use 10% of our brains. But that's a myth too! Take a look at this list of those wise words we all swear by for no apparent reason.We've all heard that reading in low light will ruin our eye sight, or that... more
-
