Do you think whenever "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 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?
February 16th, 2010 at 7:02 am
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.