![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Why skepticism is important.
Nov. 22nd, 2013 05:34 pmI've long been skeptical of all the scientific studies that keep being unable to agree on the effects of something-or-other. That's my scientific side, in fact. On the news, people seem to be under the impression that just because one scientific study says X, means that X is true. Without considering the source of that study (which IS important; if a study was done by Westboro Baptist Church, anything they said would be suspect), even! Without keeping in mind that science is not exact, scientists make mistakes, etc.
In fact, it turns out all studies done in the last few decades may have to be thrown out, because as it turns out, they've all been keeping their lab rats and mice too cold. This stresses out the animals, and reduces their immune response.
What's more, the strains of rats and mice they tend to use for these studies have been found to have an increased tendency to get cancer. That alone means any studies involving immunology (like what causes cancer) have to be re-done; all that research is garbage now, a waste of money and time.
The rules for these studies are stupid, too. It turns out that "natural" stuff has to be causing cancer at a very high concentrations before it can be said to cause cancer, which is stupid to begin with because even WATER will cause cancer at high enough concentrations. But then, "artificial" stuff, by the rules, only have to cause cancer at ANY dosage to be banned as causing cancer. For instance, cyclomates (an artificial sweetener type), which are banned in the US, cause cancer at something like 30 times the dosage of SUGAR. That means natural sugar causes cancer at smaller dosages than cyclomates do. But because of the fucked-up FDA rules,
All this explains why everything seems to cause cancer. Because between cancer-prone rats and stupidly high dosages, of COURSE everything will cause cancer, at the right dosages. But some of the cancer-causing doses can't be gotten in nature without dying another way first. Like, you'll drown or die of water intoxication long before you'll get a cancer-causing dose of water. So this throws all cancer studies into doubt.
This kind of thing is also why I'm always so wary of people who believe things like fluoride in the water are dangerous. First, all their sources for "data" are highly biased in favor of their opinion, which is the most important. Pay enough money or do the research yourself and you can make a scientific study say ANYTHING, so considering the source is highly important. And I would need to study their method in detail before I even began to consider their findings as true. And as I have pointed out, even non-biased sources CAN BE WRONG.
In fact, it turns out all studies done in the last few decades may have to be thrown out, because as it turns out, they've all been keeping their lab rats and mice too cold. This stresses out the animals, and reduces their immune response.
What's more, the strains of rats and mice they tend to use for these studies have been found to have an increased tendency to get cancer. That alone means any studies involving immunology (like what causes cancer) have to be re-done; all that research is garbage now, a waste of money and time.
The rules for these studies are stupid, too. It turns out that "natural" stuff has to be causing cancer at a very high concentrations before it can be said to cause cancer, which is stupid to begin with because even WATER will cause cancer at high enough concentrations. But then, "artificial" stuff, by the rules, only have to cause cancer at ANY dosage to be banned as causing cancer. For instance, cyclomates (an artificial sweetener type), which are banned in the US, cause cancer at something like 30 times the dosage of SUGAR. That means natural sugar causes cancer at smaller dosages than cyclomates do. But because of the fucked-up FDA rules,
All this explains why everything seems to cause cancer. Because between cancer-prone rats and stupidly high dosages, of COURSE everything will cause cancer, at the right dosages. But some of the cancer-causing doses can't be gotten in nature without dying another way first. Like, you'll drown or die of water intoxication long before you'll get a cancer-causing dose of water. So this throws all cancer studies into doubt.
This kind of thing is also why I'm always so wary of people who believe things like fluoride in the water are dangerous. First, all their sources for "data" are highly biased in favor of their opinion, which is the most important. Pay enough money or do the research yourself and you can make a scientific study say ANYTHING, so considering the source is highly important. And I would need to study their method in detail before I even began to consider their findings as true. And as I have pointed out, even non-biased sources CAN BE WRONG.