nmoira Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 I realize how difficult it would be to study this using humans (like feed one human X and feed the other Y). Obviously that would not be ethical. I just don't know how they can tease out that kind of detail when people probably eat similar things on average. So thing is, what is the culprit? A lot of times it's what they want the culprit to be or assume the culprit to be. I just read an article the other day on CNN (you can probably find it...search for diet soda). They discovered no difference in the rate of some diseases such as heart disease when comparing people who drank diet verse regular. Ok...fair enough. But then the article goes on and on and draws all sorts of conclusions based on that finding. There was an entire explanation for why that is. That's bad science (or a journalist who exaggerated). It would be interesting to read the study verses CNN's article. KWIM? Don't even get me started about science journalism. :/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.