To illustrate my point, here are two recent articles on "science."
The first carries this headline: Red Wine May Prevent Senior Falls, Study Finds and purports to report on research that shows that reservatrol, a substance found in red wine, can help the elderly to avoid falls (a major cause of death and injury in older people). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/red-wine-benefits-senior-mobili\ ty_n_1813360.html <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/red-wine-benefits-senior-mobil\ ity_n_1813360.html> The trouble is, when you read the article itself, it's clear that the study was on mice, who became steadier and less likely to fall off of a balance beam when fed diets high in reservatrol. For a human to get that much reservatrol, they would have to drink four glasses of red wine a day. The second example is the most egregious I have seen since I've been on this "bad science reporting" soapbox. It comes from the worst offender in the United States on this score, one "Dr. Mercola." This guy is infamous for using scare tactics, bad science, and even worse "tweaking" of good science to promote his practice, his books, and his often-dangerous theories, but this one just takes the cake. The headline screams: Are Diet Sodas Making Us Fat? and the article claims that a recent study (no citation provided) caused subjects who drank diet sodas to increase their waist circumference by 70%: http://www.hungryforchange.tv/are-diet-sodas-making-us-fat <http://www.hungryforchange.tv/are-diet-sodas-making-us-fat> Now sensitive to this issue of bad science reporting, I grew suspicious and did some research and found that the study Dr. Mercola fails to cite wasn't about diet sodas at all. It was a long, ten-year study on frailty in *elderly men with diabetes* in the San Antonio area, aiming at determining whether there was a difference in frailty between those of Mexican-American heritage and European-Caucasian heritage. The taken-out-of-context statistic on diet sodas was just that -- it was almost literally a footnote in the study, pointed at by this crank in an attempt to support his anti-diet soda agenda. OK, diet sodas probably *are* bad for us. But pretending that this statistic means that they'll make *everyone* fat, when the original study was on *old men with diabetes*, and wasn't about diet soda in the first place, is just reprehensible. If there is anything dangerous in the marketplace for our health, it's this crank doctor. A quick Google search ("quick" because I got tired of counting after the fifth pageload) finds at least 30 different versions of the "Red wine prevents falls" story, so it isn't just HuffPost. The Dr. Mercola hokum has been rewritten and recirculated by bad science writers even more often. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Here are some thoughts and links for salyavin and others here who have > expressed their concerns about the "TM science" and its validity. > > As we have discussed in the past, there is much to criticize about the > "TM science." Bad methodology, selection bias out the wazoo, data > manipulation, and a high probability of bias on the part of the > scientists (who, after all, are often "in it" to get strokes from their > spiritual teachers, arguably a *much* bigger temptation to bias their > results than mere economics) are a few of the things we've talked about. > > But I've been doing some research into the issue of late, and have found > that the root of the problem often lies as much with the people > *reporting* on the "science" as it does with the "scientists" creating > it. Someone does a new TM-related study, and TM TB hacks at Global Good > News or their counterparts on Huffington Post or at other papers jump on > the study and claim things about it that are NOT supported by the actual > studies. > > This is a big problem these days, not only when it comes to TM and > scientists/writers pitching to an audience so gullible that they'll > spend money on almost anything if someone calls it "science." It's a > huge problem in more mainstream research as well. > > How the News Media May Hurt Not Help Health Literacy Efforts > http://engagingthepatient.com/2011/10/17/how-the-news-media-may-hurt-not\ \ > -help-health-literacy-efforts/ > <http://engagingthepatient.com/2011/10/17/how-the-news-media-may-hurt-no\ \ > t-help-health-literacy-efforts/> > > This fellow, who runs an award-winning watchdog site called > http://www.healthnewsreview.org/ <http://www.healthnewsreview.org/> , > is my new hero. > > He's published a book (available free to Association of Health Care > Journalists members, so he isn't "in it for the money") and written a > set of guidelines and tips for science, medical, and health care writers > that he's put up for free on the Internet to help them *avoid* some of > the things that turn good science into bad reporting, or (as with the TM > studies) mediocre science into charlatanry. > > Those interested in such subjects might enjoy looking over a few of his > tips for how to understand scientific studies (and thus report on them > correctly) here: > > http://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/tips-for-understanding-studies/#\ \ > tip1 > <http://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/tips-for-understanding-studies/\ \ > #tip1> > > I know in advance that this won't be of interest to most here, who would > probably prefer reading some Woo Woo bullshit extrapolated from science > that makes them believe they understand actual science. But I pass it > along to those few who actually understand the scientific method, and > hate seeing it perverted by those who would misuse it in the name of > profit or fanaticism, and the "journalists" who help them do so. >
