I'm not basing my opinions on anything someone else has said or any studies... I base them on past personal experience.
For example, studies indicate that:
marijuana is a "gateway" drug... b.s.
pormography incites a person to commit [censored]... b.s.
children who play violent video games will commit violent crimes... b.s.
unpasteurized milk is a health risk... b.s.
aspartame is safe for human consumption... b.s.
Maybe I did overstate my opinion... you're right, not all studies are cooked. There are groups that make an effort to conduct their studies impartially, and there are some groups that come up with inaccurate results which were reached without malicious intent.
I see. Personal experience. So you've done studies that demonstrate that all those things you say are b.s are actually b.s and not just
your opinion?
Here is what actual research says about your various topics (Warning: Science Ahead):
1. Marijuana is a gateway drug.
From: Choo, T., Roh, S., & Robinson, M. (2008). ASSESSING THE "GATEWAY HYPOTHESIS"AMONG MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN TENNESSEE. Journal of Drug Issues, 38(2), 467-492. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Abstract:
Spoiler The current study examines the applicability of the "gateway hypothesis" to drug use patterns of secondary school students from a nonmetropolitan area in Tennessee. The data were collected from students in the 8th, 10th, and 12th grades at three secondary schools, using self-administered questionnaires under supervision of teachers. Although there is some support for the gateway hypothesis in our data, there is also evidence that what differentiates those who move from initial marijuana use to use of harder drugs are risk factors unique to individuals and their environments, consistent with the predictions of problem behavior theory and integrated systems theory. Implications for various interpretations of the gateway hypothesis are discussed.
2. pormography incites a person to commit ([censored]?)
From: Kingston, D. A., Malamuth, N. M., Fedoroff, P., & Marshall, W. L. (2009). The Importance of Individual Differences in pormography Use: Theoretical Perspectives and Implications for Treating sixual Offenders. Journal of six Research, 46(2/3), 216-232. doi:10.1080/00224490902747701
Abstract:
Spoiler This article reviews the extant literature regarding pormography's influence on antisocial attitudes, sixual arousal, and sixually aggressive behavior in both noncriminal and criminal samples. The article concludes that when examined in the context of multiple, interacting factors, the findings are highly consistent across experimental and nonexperimental studies and across differing populations in showing that pormography use can be a risk factor for sixually aggressive outcomes, principally for men who are high on other risk factors and who use pormography frequently. Finally, this article presents theoretical implications based on these findings, as well as some clinical implications relevant to the assessment and treatment of sixual offenders.
3. Children who play violent video games will commit violent crimes.
From: Porter, G., & Starcevic, V. (2007). Are violent video games harmful?. Australasian Psychiatry, 15(5), 422-426. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Abstract:
Spoiler OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to revisit the controversial issue of the association of violent video games and aggressive behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: Several lines of evidence suggest that there is a link between exposure to violent video games and aggressive behaviour. However, methodological shortcomings of research conducted so far make several interpretations of this relationship possible. Thus, aggressive behaviour may be a consequence of playing violent video games, an expression of hostile traits that existed before exposure to these games, and/or it may be a result of several possible combinations of these and other factors. Mental health professionals need to be aware of these potentially negative effects of violent video games when assessing patients who present with aggression. There is a need for prospective, long-term studies similar to those evaluating the effects of television and film violence on children and adolescents.
4. Unpasteurized milk is a health risk.
From: Burnett, S., & Beuchat, L. (2001). Human pathogens associated with raw produce and unpasteurized juices, and difficulties in decontamination. Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology, 27(2), 104. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Abstract:
Spoiler The ability of public health agencies to identify, through enhanced epidemiologic and surveillance techniques, raw fruits, vegetables, and unpasteurized juices as probable sources of infectious microorganisms, has undoubtedly resulted in increased numbers of documented outbreaks. Changes in agronomic, harvesting, distribution, processing, and consumption patterns and practices have also likely contributed to this increase. The risk of illness associated with raw produce and unpasteurized produce products can be reduced by controlling or preventing contamination, or by removing or killing pathogenic microorganisms by washing or treating them with sanitizers. However, the hydrophobic cutin, diverse surface morphologies, and abrasions in the epidermis of fruits and vegetables limit the efficacy of these treatments. Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology (2001) 27, 104–110.
5. Aspartame is safe for human consumption.
From: Magnuson, B. A., Burdock, G. A., Doull, J. J., Kroes, R. M., Marsh, G. M., Pariza, M. W., & ... Williams, G. M. (2007). Aspartame: A Safety Evaluation Based on Current Use Levels, Regulations, and Toxicological and Epidemiological Studies. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 37(8), 629-727. doi:10.1080/10408440701516184
Abstract:
Spoiler Aspartame is a methyl ester of a dipeptide used as a synthetic nonnutritive sweetener in over 90 countries worldwide in over 6000 products. The purpose of this investigation was to review the scientific literature on the absorption and metabolism, the current consumption levels worldwide, the toxicology, and recent epidemiological studies on aspartame. Current use levels of aspartame, even by high users in special subgroups, remains well below the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Food Safety Authority established acceptable daily intake levels of 50 and 40 mg/kg bw/day, respectively. Consumption of large doses of aspartame in a single bolus dose will have an effect on some biochemical parameters, including plasma amino acid levels and brain neurotransmitter levels. The rise in plasma levels of phenylalanine and aspartic acid following administration of aspartame at doses less than or equal to 50 mg/kg bw do not exceed those observed postprandially. Acute, subacute and chronic toxicity studies with aspartame, and its decomposition products, conducted in mice, rats, hamsters and dogs have consistently found no adverse effect of aspartame with doses up to at least 4000 mg/kg bw/day. Critical review of all carcinogenicity studies conducted on aspartame found no credible evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic. The data from the extensive investigations into the possibility of neurotoxic effects of aspartame, in general, do not support the hypothesis that aspartame in the human diet will affect nervous system function, learning or behavior. Epidemiological studies on aspartame include several case-control studies and one well-conducted prospective epidemiological study with a large cohort, in which the consumption of aspartame was measured. The studies provide no evidence to support an association between aspartame and cancer in any tissue. The weight of existing evidence is that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener.
But after a while of hearing this crap that is presented as if it were based on some sort of science, I pretty much dismiss it all as propaganda from the get-go. It is disseminated in such a way as to influence peoples attitudes and behaviors in order to benefit a specific group or organization. I'm not so gullible as to believe something just because some study "proves" it is so.
And here's the problem: One study
does not actually prove or disprove something. All one study can (usually) do is provide evidence for the null hypothesis or reject the null hypothesis (based upon the data and, yes, statistics). You could run a hundred studies all on the same thing and they wouldn't "prove" anything either - they'd just provide a mountain of evidence that what the studies found was (very likely) to be the case.
1. peer review is when the peers feel like reviewing work. alot goes un reviewed but that isn't even my point. people treat these studies as if they were a conclusion to the proposed annalysis. and the people conducting these studies let it happen. people should be aware that just because a man in a lab coat tells you something that doesn't mean its fake. all these studies do is link statistics to other statistics, people should take these and say; OH X happens because of what this study said. I am not attacking science. I am attacking the arrogance that many of these studies are often based on demographics or perspective. (I am not talking about studies that use scientifical tangible evidence. but I am attackign the ones that just look at a number of people and declaire that they found the reason why people live longer or why babies are getting fatter, when its obvious there are more factors to these things than just a mono result that studies I have mention post)
Ok... I think I see your point here. You seem to have much more of a problem with the way studies are reported (by the media) than the studies themselves. I can certainly agree with that. No reason to blame the researchers, though.
2. even as deadly as it could have been, it would never have been half as deadly of the common cold. and my point was that it hyped and so are the studies I pointed out. people are using these studies to crusade their point of view and force it on others. which becomes a health risk.
You don't know that. I don't know that, either. It could certainly have been as deadly as some scientists feared - neither of us has evidence to the contrary for something that might have occurred - but thankfully it was not as deadly and we're all still here to debate about it.
That said, Reneer, I don't think your faith in the process should be as absolute as it appears to be from reading what you've read. There's such a huge volume of submission so constantly that crap slips through all the time. Just the way it is. At this point I figure the whole point of a peer-reviewed journal is to say "this is probably not crap" instead of "this is absolutely not crap".
You've read, at most, maybe a paragraph or two about my views on the peer review process. I can assure you my belief in the ability of the peer review process to weed out bad studies is not absolute - not even close. I believe the peer review process to be a much better method than simply allowing every researcher on the planet to publish their study in
Nature or
Science with abandon. I do not believe the peer review process to be faultless - I even, earlier, noted a study where the peer review process failed to detect falsified research. Please do not make assumptions about my views.
» Tue May 17, 2011 11:00 am 
