If I had to make a list of things that are in much higher supply now than 20 or 30 years ago I would say:

1. Television channels and options

2. Billionaires

3. "Health Food" options

4. Social Networks

5. "Scientific" Studies

It has been said that Americans love gossip but it is equally true that Americans love "studies" and surveys and all media outlets and marketing companies and virtually anyone with an agenda is producing studies to create interest, change behavior, distribute propaganda, or just to sell goods and services.

But, what are "studies" and are they all created equally? I think we all would be served well if, as students in school, we were taught how to scrutinize and examine a study for it's value, impartiality, credibility, and truthfulness. Most people don't have much of a clue of how to critically evaluate a "study" and certainly most people don't know what makes a study scientific or whether a scientific study is even more credible than a study that does not follow scientific guidelines.

I would maintain that the manipulation of "studies" is one of the most common characteristics of a "study". The processes of a significant percentage of studies are seriously flawed and designed to reach a specific, orchestrated conclusion.

If you add the word "Research" or "Scientific" in front of the word "study" then you create the illusion, in many cases, that the study has even more credibility.

The truth is...if we look to see who is paying for most studies we will find that it is often people or companies or industries that have an agenda; a strong incentive to make certain the results of the "study" make them look good.

Do you even wonder if a study is legitimate simply based on the seeming impossibility of even collecting the data in any legitimate way?

Many studies we see front row and center from the media are based on polling. When you ask how many people like turkey vs. pastrami then you certainly do not have the resources to ask all 320 million in the U.S. how they feel re: turkey vs. pastrami. You will select a very small sample size and then you will associate a margin of error (highly flawed protocol) with this sample size. If 2016 taught us anything it should have taught us that polls are remarkably flawed. In the Michigan Democratic primary Bernie Sanders was, by virtually all polls, 25 points behind Hillary Clinton in most polls taken just the day before the primary. He was supposed to get trounced. No poll had this primary even close. Most respected pollsters had Clinton in a 25 point victory with a margin of error of +/- 2.5 points. So, according to their own expertise the polls can only be off by a factor of 2.5 points either way. Well, things didn't go as expected as Sanders won Michigan by 2 points. That represents a total failure in the polls as having even a remote approximation of actually voting results. Their +/- 2.5 points is so incredibly wrong that it's hard to process. The entire primary was one polling gaff after another. The polls were embarrassingly worthless. Yet, the American public will still give credibility to polling.

"Research" studies or Surveys are another type of analysis designed to uncover facts. It seems like Studies and Surveys of all kinds are overwhelmingly prevalent in our society. The results of most studies that are publicly cited in the media are, generally, that it influences our behavior or changes our belief about something in a way that is contrary to the standard perception. This is how it gets people's attention and gets "clicks". This is how the media makes money. In a Capitalist society where money is king we can only imagine how "studies" are used to influence people's behaviors or purchasing trends.

For an example, in 2008 the International Dairy Council met in Mexico City for their annual meeting. They were concerned with the growing fact that people across the world were eating less dairy due to a perception that dairy was not as good for health as traditionally accepted. They were losing sales and they needed to make some decisions. They decided collectively to put lots of dollars into research that would show that dairy was not bad for health. They looked for sympathetic researchers who would change public opinion about dairy consumption. They found a researcher in Berkeley, California who had been funded by the Beef industry and the Dairy Industry. This doctor released a study that suggested that Dairy was not bad for your health. It literally revitalized the Dairy industry at the time. Research is very expensive and large companies with tremendous resources and much to gain have the ability to do highly biased "research" and pay for the people who they want to do the research. It's a classic case of conflict of interest. The general public isn't protected from this biased research. They assume that a "study" has credibility and it is performed without bias. Similarly the Tobacco industry funded many studies in an attempt to debunk the overwhelming evidence that smoking is extremely bad for your health. Certainly it blunted some of the bad publicity created around smoking because it clouded the perceptions. Eventually the tobacco industry couldn't counter the onslaught of repeated negative studies.

Below is a link regarding the way the Egg industry was able to bribe the USDA and the HHS (both government agencies) in order to remove warnings regarding cholesterol consumption.

https://www.pcrm.org/news/news...

Baby food companies were able, in the early 60's, to get mothers to question whether their own milk was as good for their baby as processed baby formula. Breastfeeding rates went down dramatically during the 50's and 60's based on horribly flawed science that was motivated by profits for the Baby Food companies. In 1956 a "study" showed that only 20% of women in America were breastfeeding. The rest were buying formula. Think of all the money that was made off those lies. If you are the Baby Food lobby then pay a doctor a ton of money to do a "study" showing that baby formula is better for the baby than it's mother's own milk at the same time you are associating breast feeding with a lower educated segment of society. "Educated and civilized women don't breast feed their children".

Here is an example of a type of study that will be very flawed in its assertions. Let's say you are trying to prove that people who are Vegans live longer with less disease and heart attacks than non Vegans. You select 500 Vegans and 500 non Vegans for the study. You determine that those who are Vegans studied over a 10 year period had less disease and heart attacks. Therefore, you conclude by your study that being Vegan will lower your chances of disease and heart attacks. The problem with this conclusion is that the study doesn't take in the fact that Vegans are much more likely to live healthy lifestyle unrelated to diet. They are less likely to be smokers, abusers of alcohol, and more likely to incorporate exercise in their diet and to limit junk and processed foods. There are way too many variables. A proper study will eliminate variables. This makes it impossible to associate a Vegan diet with less disease and heart attacks based on that study. Studies are easy to coerce and, like sausage, the general public doesn't know how they are made.

It is very common to find two different studies that reached exactly opposite conclusions. There are dozens of studies over the last 60 years that will say that foods (meat proteins primarily) that are high in saturated fats will increase your risk of heart attack and stroke significantly. There are also dozens of studies that will show that diets high in saturated fats do not increase the risk for heart attack and stroke. Who is wrong? Who is paying for these studies? What kind of controls are used in the studies? There are properly performed studies and there are poorly performed studies. Most people just read the headlines and they have no ability to dissect a study based on scientific cr
iteria. The validity of studies is very important because studies are often used to establish credibility and justification in a court of law. If an industry or a doctor, etc., can point to a published study that supports his or her protocols then it can shield them from liability whether or not that study is worthless, biased, poorly performed, etc..

In the age of the increasing power of social media there is a lot of money to be made in getting our attention (with ludicrous headlines OR truth) and there is perhaps even more money to be made by changing our behavior such that we eat more eggs, eat more vegetables, buy more vitamin supplements, buy more exercise equipment, eat more chicken, incarcerate more black people, build a wall between California and Mexico, etc..

It's now more important than ever to be able to sift through insidious manipulation by virtually every facet of society and to think critically and clearly. It's a difficult challenge but it is required of us or else we will lose control of our autonomy and of Truth. For some it will be a question of life or death.

Food for thought....

See the rest here:
Can we trust the endless supply of Studies? - Patch.com