• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Milk, it really does do a body good

Seth Stephens-Davidowitz is an economist who uses Google for his research. Featured on this episode of Freakonomics radio, he tells us that, unlike anonymous surveys (where subjects might lie to "normalize" their answers), people who are searching for things have an incentive not to lie - or else the search goes nowhere.

Anyhow, this little gem popped up in the show:
"The top search that starts 'My husband wants' in India, is: 'My husband wants me to breast feed him.'"
 
So About That Hyped New Study On Cheese Being Great
Click to expand...
The research was part-funded by the three pro-dairy groups — Global Dairy Platform, Dairy Research Institute and Dairy Australia — but they had no influence over it, the paper said.

So, what's the problem with this study, you might ask? It's a meta-analysis, meaning lots of studies' data pooled together. I love meta-analyses. But the glaring problem with any meta-analysis is that scientists get to pick what papers they include and what papers they don't. In this case, the researchers excluded any study where the participants eating the cheese were children, or had prior cases of cardiovascular disease, diabetes or other chronic disease.
Click to expand...
Imagine if this was a study on lung cancer, financed by tobacco companies. Wouldn't you be just a tiny bit suspicious?
 
John Jones said:
Suspicious of your dairy/tobacco analogy? Absolutely.
Click to expand...

The analogy isn't between the products and their harm.
The analogy is that both have a study funded by a huge industry with a vested interest in the outcome.

Does that mean the study is bogus? No, but I'd say that it does warrant a little extra scrutiny.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
The analogy isn't between the products and their harm.
The analogy is that both have a study funded by a huge industry with a vested interest in the outcome.

Does that mean the study is bogus? No, but I'd say that it does warrant a little extra scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Next question, who sponsored the anti-milk studies?

There are oft-quoted studies authored by folks who were first members of PETA, or other animal abuse groups. I suspect their anti-animal product stance to quite biased by their religious zealotry level belief in vegetarianism.

A skeptic should ask "what is the science behind the theory?"
 
casebro said:
A skeptic should ask "what is the science behind the theory?"
Click to expand...
Yes, but that's not easy when the article doesn't even tell you the name of the study or who did it. It's almost like they don't want you to examine the science. Just believe whatever the journo tells you, because he's the expert. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom