Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 6:
Line 6: + +
second hand smoke has NOT been proven harmful - you liberals had it the other way around
In some cases, junk science may result from a misinterpretation of previous sound scientific studies. An example of this is the misinterpretation of the research on eggs and cholesterol<ref>http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/faculty/pbird/keepingfit/ARTICLE/eggs.HTM</ref>. Studies had found that eggs contained cholesterol and that cholesterol in blood contributed to heart disease. So as a result of these studies, people were advised again eating eggs. What ws missing, however, was a study showing that the cholesterol in blood is a direct result of cholesterol intake in diet. We know now that that is not the case, that saturated fat intake and overall body fat are the primary contributors to cholesterol production in blood.
In some cases, junk science may result from a misinterpretation of previous sound scientific studies. An example of this is the misinterpretation of the research on eggs and cholesterol<ref>http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/faculty/pbird/keepingfit/ARTICLE/eggs.HTM</ref>. Studies had found that eggs contained cholesterol and that cholesterol in blood contributed to heart disease. So as a result of these studies, people were advised again eating eggs. What ws missing, however, was a study showing that the cholesterol in blood is a direct result of cholesterol intake in diet. We know now that that is not the case, that saturated fat intake and overall body fat are the primary contributors to cholesterol production in blood.
A more recent example is the hoopla over [[secondhand smoke]], which liberals say has now been conclusively proven to cause nearly 20% of urban deaths. Anti-smoking activists base this claim on small studies while ignoring larger studies; see [[cherry-picking]]. [http://www.junkscience.com/feb01/perske.htm]
All sides in scientific controversies say that they condemn junk science, so this leaves the lay reader with the task of determining who is telling the truth. The best way is to examine the facts and reasoning in scientific reports.
All sides in scientific controversies say that they condemn junk science, so this leaves the lay reader with the task of determining who is telling the truth. The best way is to examine the facts and reasoning in scientific reports.