This essay from Real Clear Science, a web site I visit every day, is a great explanation for the conflicts and controversies that we thrive on here at JunkScience. You think I don’t know when something will irritate someone?
Category Archives: Junk scientists
I would say Henninger is a very insightful person usually and his assessment is right on some things here. He points some obvious things about people’s sense of security that allows them to ignore the dangers of refusing vaccines. However he is wrong on the motivations, by a click or two.
There are some charlatans associated with warming that deserve to be exposed as frauds and Moountebanks. People who claim things that are exaggerations or lies.
I have to say, when I was reviewing this monograph on the Ozone issues, I realized Joel Schwartz is something special.
I would recommend you consider the face and demeanor of the next fanatic lefty you deal with.
So an association is found–between drugs and later dementia.
Wow–like those Ascherio and Willett Nurse Study Group announcements.
Small associations, multiple inquiry, no plausible mechanism, and I am tired of this crap–but it will make the news.
These researchers might even get some more funding.
Observational epidemiological studies with small associations are nada, nothing, zilch. Real effect is seen in strong–as in 100% effect–a doubling of the rate is not that much really, so most journals demand Relative Risk of 3 or 4 in loosey goosey observational studies.
In political hot button and agency priority areas, though, with high public concerns, like air pollution scares or research on cancer of the breast or Alzheimer’s and dementia, the political arena these stupid studies get treated well, and in some cases silly observational (ecological) studies are treated like they were randomized and controlled trials with double blinding, cross over and good plausibility.
The authors sort of lamely admit to the limitations of the study and suggest it is hypothesis generating–apparently fishing for grant money? Imagine that.
I have always thought that tautological thinking is characteristic of people who feel invincible/unassailable in their authority or ability to influence a debate or public opinion or the opinion of the person in the room.