Most studies are dumb

[Nova]

You know scientist throw these studies out because ... Duh

But honestly some of them aren't really true.

Last year , they said meat causes or can cancer but honestly if that statement would be true than most of world population would have cancer.

We ate meat for milions of years. You can't tell me that its deadly. Even vegans get cancer.

Same with nutella, they said again it can cause cancer. Was there any report of a person getting cancer from nutella. OF COURSE NOT

They did the same with coca cola. The only thing it causes could be diabetes.

 

 

 

They probably test it on animals or do nothing and than assume it.

 

 

 

[FlynnCoyote]

I feel like you're making some rather hefty assumptions yourself here.

[Vallium]

Oh nova...the way you explain your reasoning is so bad, lol!

 

There are "legit" studies, you have to check your sources, who is doing the study, where, and the details in the study.

 

Sometimes people will just look at the clickbait title and not realize there's more to the study than they expected.

 

...I'm not a genius so I can't think of examples or explain this in a better way.

[Vallium]

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/healthy-eating/news/a27583/can-nutella-cause-cancer 

 

Here's something regarding the nutella, it's in the DETAILS

 

The specifics of the study were greatly exaggerated to say "nutella can cause cancer'.

What really happened is there was a study saying that certain oils (substances derived from glycodil, refined at high temperatures) have elements which may cause cancer in rats, though it says "more data may be needed"

Italy pulled several items off of shelves, and this caused a stir. Nutella was not among the items, and even though it contains palm oil it isn't related to the potential danger that the glycodilic substances may cause.

Someone could say "study says nutella causes cancer!" But the details within might detail how the study has some pitfalls or incongruencies with what really is in nutella, making the original title moot.

Do you see how clickbatey articles and titles exaggerate details? Of course it's stupid, and stupid people fall for it. I appreciate your common sense but you're being a little bit silly yourself dismissing studies without looking into why the claim was even made first!

[Faust]

The short version: don't blame the scientists when newspapers manipulate their findings to produce sensationalist claims.

[Sarcastic Coffeecup]

Here we observe a victim to clickbaity articles who doesn't do fact checking or have critical thought. This is the future generation.

[WileyWarWeasel]

2 hours ago, WolfNightV4X1 said:

What really happened is there was a study saying that certain oils (substances derived from glycodil, refined at high temperatures) have elements which may cause cancer in rats, though it says "more data may be needed"

The rats don't need more data ;(((((

55 minutes ago, Sarcastic Coffeecup said:

Here we observe a victim to clickbaity articles who doesn't do fact checking or have critical thought. This is the future generation.

That requires time, cognitive capacity, intellectual honesty and effort. If we're being honest previous generations also swallowed propaganda without any critical thinking (through television, radio, newspapers).

[Zeke]

Stop reading clickbait. 

[Jtrekkie]

 

If it makes you feel better, there's nothing new about papers being taken wildly out of context.

[Revates]

I live on clickbait articles, myself.

[Vallium]

I actually clicked on a clickbait article once, it had this picture of some bald baby animal and I wanted to know what it was, title was something like "YOULL NEVER GUESS WHAT THIS ANIMAL IS"

...so like, I click on the thing because I just wanna know. The article doesn't tell me right off the bat though, it serenades you with a story of a guy who finds this pink think he brings back to health yada yada yada and THE DAMN STORY GOES ON FOR LIKE THREE PAGES until they finally say its a goddam squirrel