The title was crafted to determine if the word “tits” results in a large number of page clicks. Admin, please monitor the stats.
SSS, in a post – “Party On, Garth” – he authored is ecstatic that, “researchers at Northwestern University have analyzed the relationship between casual use of marijuana and brain changes”. This new scientific study, soon to be published in the Journal of Neuroscience will probably replace his Viagra prescription. OK, the following two quotes are from the brilliant mind of SSS (emphasis, his)
——————————————————— –
“The article was about MEDICAL RESEARCH ON CASUAL MARIJUANA SMOKING.”
“I’m sick of hearing and reading this endless shit that smoking weed is harmless. It isn’t, particularly for young, developing minds.”
——————————————————— –
SSS isn’t the only idiot to be duped into believing the latest and greatest scientific study. A few months ago I went ape-shit when I read that Fish Oil actually CAUSES heart attacks …. until a poster pointed out the biased source of that study.
Even scientists fucken lie to us, are highly biased, and can be bought off for 30 shekels of silver (see anthropogenic climate change). So, my eyes now glaze over and my brain shuts down when someone tries to sway me to their point of view by referencing a “scientific study”. Don’t you feel the same way?
Also, it is often annoyingly used … as in SSS’s thread … as a way to shut down discussion, and thinking; “Hey, I have a scientific study, so just shut your pie hole!!” Then the other person posts their own scientific-study links — or, if your name is flash, you’ll copy and paste the whole damn thing. Thus, it devolves quickly into a my-expert-has-a-bigger-dick-than-your-expert raging debate. For example, experts have said the following;
—- “Eggs linked to diabetes”
—- “Eggs improve glucose control”
—- “Processed meats linked to cancer”
—- “Hot Dogs may prevent cancer”
It’s all point-counterpoint contradictory bullshit.
The video below is 46 minutes long, virtually guaranteeing that not one of your curs will watch it. That’s too bad. The guy is quite humorous. His presentation is very informative and presented in a most interesting manner. Give it a shot. Start at the 2 minute mark and watch a couple minutes … it might just “hook” you. And, if you watch the whole thing you will know more about nutrition science and how studies work than 99% of people out there.
Here are the basics.
1) CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION
It is critical to recognize the difference between the two types of studies: observational studies and intervention studies.
2) OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES:
In an observational study, there is no intervention or treatment. The researchers OBSERVE the subjects over a period of time and gather data about them. Observational studies use mathematical methods to crunch the data and find out whether a certain trait or behavior is associated with a particular outcome. These studies can show, for example, that A (drinking) and B (depression) are associated, but they can NOT (!!!) prove that A caused B.
3) CLINICAL TRIALS or INTERVENTION STUDIES:
In clinical trials, there are two or more groups that receive a different type of treatment. Often there is a group that receives no treatment at all (called the control group). The gold standard of such studies is the Randomized Controlled Trial, which randomizes subjects into two or more groups where for example, one group eats a low-carb diet and the other a low-fat diet. These sorts of studies ARE capable of demonstrating causation, e.g. that A caused B. It is common that something that has been “proven” in an observational study turns out to be completely wrong when tested in a clinical trial. Clinical Trials are always better than Observational Studies.
4) SO …. WHAT’S THE PROBLEM?
Clinical studies tend to be complex, lengthy, and expensive. Most headlines you see media whores “reporting” are based on observational studies and the reporters make it seem like these studies prove something.
For example, the Nurses Health Study, one of the largest epidemiological studies ever conducted, showed that women who took hormones after menopause had a lower risk of heart disease. However, when randomized controlled trials were conducted, it turned out that the hormone drugs actually increased their risk of heart disease. So, how many women got heart attacks due to people buying into this observational study that turned out to be wrong?
Most everyone knows about the study which “proved” that saturated fat is associated with cardiovascular disease. That too, was an observational study. The accompanying false headlines gave rise to the incredibly damaging low-fat, high-carb, high-sugar dogma that probably played a significant part in the ongoing obesity and diabetes epidemic.
Scientists like to fudge numbers. When absolute-change (subtraction) isn’t very impressive they will resort to relative-change (division). Example. Lipitor studies were done on men already at-risk for heart disease. After TEN years 2 out of 100 men in the Lipitor group suffered a heart attack … the placebo group numbered 3.05 out of 100 men. So, the absolute-change is just ONE heart attack for every hundred men. That sounds pretty shitty!! But, wait! Let’s apply the magic of division and calculate the relative change. For the math challenged ……. (smaller number / bigger number), then subtract that by 1 to get the relative-change as a decimal. Soooo ….. (2 / 3.05 = 0.64) – 1 = .36
WOOHOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are the results of the study a lie? Not necessarily. But, it does lead virtually everyone into believing that more than one-third of men taking Lipitor will reduce their chance of a heart attack …….. when the goddamn fact of the matter is that the REAL number is 1 in 100. Deceptive sons of bitches!!!
How many deaths have been caused by the failed nutritional policy of the last few decades based on observational studies AND misleading clinical studies that turned out to be wrong …. millions? And, still counting.
There’s actually a LOT more info in that video. But, I’m not going to spoon feed you the whole thing. Check it out yourself.
.
BACK TO SSS AND THE STUDY WHICH GIVES HIM A WOODY
Emphasis are mine.
1)- The article says —— “For their most recent study, Breiter and his team analyzed a VERY SMALL SAMPLE of patients …” A sample size that small is completely worthless bullshit. Even the gooberment knows this;
“A study on a small sample is quite tempting for obvious reasons, but it is a waste of time and money as the result will be invariably inconclusive.” ——– http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2993974/
2)- The article says —– “This study is JUST A BEGINNING pilot study ….. brain changes ASSOCIATED WITH casual marijuana use in young adults …….. the interaction of marijuana with brain development COULD BE a significant problem ….. this study SUGGESTS that even light to moderate recreational marijuana use CAN CAUSE changes in brain anatomy” ———– Summary: They’re just getting started and they really can’t say jack-shit about anything whatsoever in a conclusive manner. They use one weasel-word after another, something the video addresses.
3)- Always a KEY question; WHO funded the research? In this case it was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center. Bwaahahaha! In other words, the same type of quasi-governmental fuckwads who in the 1950’s made that hilarious move, “Reefer Madness”, which provided “proof” that teenagers who smoke marijuana will kill their parents with axes.
4)- Lastly, the most damning evidence of all comes from Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse which helped fund the study! …. …. “Larger studies are needed to explore whether casual to moderate marijuana use really does cause anatomical brain changes, and IF so, whether that leads to any impairment. THE CURRENT WORK DOESN’T DETERMINE WHETHER CASUAL TO MODERATE MARIJUANA USE IS HARMFUL TO THE BRAIN.” LMFAO
I know you folks aren’t dummies, but let me emphasize the above quote. SSS comes here to gloat about a study that supposedly links marijuana use to brain damage …. but the Director of the organization who actually funded the study basically says the study proves ….. NOTHING!! Game. Set. Match
CONCLUSION:
When it comes to marijuana, SSS is full of shit. He tries to feed you all shit-sandwiches. But, as you can clearly see, I have utterly destroyed both his argument and credibility. You can thank me and/or adore me for setting the record straight as soon as you can.
================================
For you A.D.D. types here are two shorter videos. It is NOT directly related to the topic. It is related in that they are done by the same person, Tom Naughton. These are two short clips from a movie he produced, “Fat Head”.
BIG FAT LIES
WHY YOU GOT FAT
Thank you for reading.
.
Oh … I don’t want to be accused of False Advertising. So, for you perverts, here’s your Fake Titty picture;
Those are real Stuck
Tits did not do it. Pics inside forced me.
Stucky, I believe that may be the finest, most definitive post on TBP ever.
SSS is full of shit. Thanks Stucky.
Hey……I’m here for the gang bang…..chicks not dicks though….I’ll come back later. Cool.
Great article and presentation, then you end it with disgusting bags of silicon. Phooey.
The “why you got fat” video proves your point exactly. It’s utter bullshit.
Science is skewed in so many ways. From the government’s reporting of inflation to articles that appear in journals. Science is done by fallible humans. You used to be able to trust scientific studies, until the internet came along. Now anybody can publish anything. And let me clue you in on a little unknown secret: scientific journals are in it for the money. They make a fortune, and your tax and education dollars support these greedy bastards. They publish bullshit studies like SSS’ because they are sensational. The journals are competing (like all forms of print) for cash with the internet.
I quit believing “scientific studies” a decade ago. They’re no more meaningful than the garbage you see on the MSM news shows. And people love to quote “scientific studies” to make a point, or have people think they’re smarter than they really are. SSS should leave the science to the scientists, and stick to breaking golf clubs, a bad hook, and early bird specials at Sizzler.
It really shouldn’t matter what some study says about marijuana use. The question the drug warriors never want to address is this: does an individual own his own body? If he does, he should be able to smoke, swallow or ingest whatever his heart desires – as long as he alone is willing to accept the consequences for his choices.
If he doesn’t own his own body, he is a slave, and those who get to dictate what he can or can’t do are his masters.
Do you want to be free or be a slave?
The people who pay for studies determine what the facts are. The government funds most science in US. We should be very skeptical.
Due to mountains of evidence , I just assume anything produced by the government will be for the benefit of government , therefore mostly likely a lie.
Excellent article, Stuck…long story made short. Money corrupts science as much as any other human endeavor.Men are easily corrupted.Scientist are men.
Are here’s you complimentary c&p..http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/02/computer-generated-science_27.html
Computer-generated science
In fairness, the fraudulent science papers were no less rubbish than most of the stuff being published by human scientists these days:
Computer scientist Cyril Labbé of Joseph Fourier University in Grenoble, France, spent two years examining published research papers, and found that computer-generated papers made it into more than 30 conferences, and over 120 have been published by academic publishing houses — over 100 by the the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) and 16 by Springer.
The papers were generated by a piece of free software called SCIgen, developed in 2005 by scientists at MIT. SCIgen randomly generates nonsense papers, complete with graphs, diagrams and citations, and its purpose was to demonstrate how easily conferences accept meaningless submissions.
Actually, in light of how they demonstrated that peer review is a completely ineffective filter and “published science” is no indication that it is even non-fiction, let alone reflective of actual science, one can reasonably argue that the computer gibberish was of considerably more scientific utility than the average science publication.
At this point, it’s simply laughable that anyone even dares appeal to science anymore, let alone “scientific consensus
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-seeds-of-bad-science.html
The seeds of bad science
Rupert Darwell traces them in a book entitled The Age of Global Warming:
The origins of warmism lie in a cocktail of ideas which includes anti-industrial nature worship, post-colonial guilt, a post-Enlightenment belief in scientists as a new priesthood of the truth, a hatred of population growth, a revulsion against the widespread increase in wealth and a belief in world government. It involves a fondness for predicting that energy supplies won’t last much longer (as early as 1909, the US National Conservation Commission reported to Congress that America’s natural gas would be gone in 25 years and its oil by the middle of the century), protest movements which involve dressing up and disappearing into woods (the Kindred of the Kibbo Kift, the Mosleyite Blackshirts who believed in reafforestation) and a dislike of the human race (The Club of Rome’s work Mankind at the Turning-Point said: “The world has cancer and the cancer is man.”).
These beliefs began to take organised, international, political form in the 1970s. One of the greatest problems, however, was that the ecologists’ attacks on economic growth were unwelcome to the nations they most idolised – the poor ones. The eternal Green paradox is that the concept of the simple, natural life appeals only to countries with tons of money. By a brilliant stroke, the founding fathers developed the concept of “sustainable development”. This meant that poor countries would not have to restrain their own growth, but could force restraint upon the rich ones. This formula was propagated at the first global environmental conference in Stockholm in 1972….
Scientists, Rupert Darwall complains, have been too ready to embrace the “subjectivity” of the future, and too often have a “cultural aversion to learning from the past”. If they read this tremendous book they will see those lessons set out with painful clarity.
If one wanted to understand the root of my contempt for scientists and scientistry, as opposed to my mere opposition to their pseudo-scientific policies, it can be summarized by Darwall’s statement about their “cultural aversion to learning from the past”.
Scientody is a powerful tool. But history is an even more useful and reliable one with regards to humanity. Because, a few genetic alterations over time notwithstanding, Man remains Man and human nature remains human nature.
Labels: AGW/CC, science
“In 2011, after having read several really bad papers in the journal Science, I decided to explore just how slipshod their peer-review process is. I knew that their business depends on publishing “sexy” papers. So I created a manuscript that claimed something extraordinary – THAT I’D DISCOVERED A SPECIES OF BACTERIA THAT USES ARSENIC IN ITS DNA INSTEAD OF PHOSPHORUS.
But I made the science so egregiously bad that no competent peer reviewer would accept it. The approach was deeply flawed – there were poor or absent controls in every figure. I used ludicrously elaborate experiments where simple ones would have done. And I failed to include a simple, obvious experiment that would have definitively shown that arsenic was really in the bacteria’s DNA. I then submitted the paper to Science, punching up the impact the work would have on our understanding of extraterrestrials and the origins of life on Earth in the cover letter. And what do you know? They accepted it!”
To the four remaining people who have yet to read this thread …. please quickly go to the following two sites and tell me what, if anything, is wrong with them.
Save The Guinea Worm Foundation — http://www.deadlysins.com/guineaworm/index.htm
Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division —- http://www.dhmo.org/
Are you smarter than a fifth grader?
.
.
.
Also, SSS’s silence is deafening. That’s what happens when one completely DEMOLISHES the opponent.
11 SCIENTIFIC PROOFS THAT BREAD IS DANGEROUS
1)- Bread is often a “GATEWAY” food item, leading the user to “harder” items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter and even cold cuts.
2)- Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.
3)- In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever and influenza ravaged whole nations.
4)- More than 90% of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.
5)- Bread is made from a substance called “dough.” It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average American eats more bread than that in one month!
6)- Primitive tribal societies that have no bread exhibit a low occurrence of cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease and osteoporosis.
7)- Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after only two days.
8)- More than 98% of convicted felons are bread eaters.
9)- Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90% water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person.
10)- Newborn babies can choke on bread.
11)- Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute
Did SSS just flinch?
[img
[/img]
..on the scientoady far side.
How can brain damaged fish unable to recognize predators evolve into brain damaged humans unable to recognize predators if something isn’t done about global warming?…eh?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2605560/Fish-losing-survival-instinct-climate-change-claim-researchers.html
Climate change is damaging fish brains and causing them to lose their survival instinct, researchers warn
Carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere is absorbed into ocean waters, where it dissolves and lowers the pH of the water.
Fishes sensory systems were impaired by the change, causing neurons in the brain to misfire
Were unable to distinguish predators
Stucky, I’m just catching up on reading. Fun post — as someone who conducts scientific studies every day, I concur completely with your “basics” above. I have always hated how some people run simple surveys and then publish the results as “facts” when, in fact, they are only findings from that particular question set and sample at a given moment in time. That’s the kind of stuff that makes people discredit the good research that is done, where we develop new knowledge, establish correlation and set the stage for further study / replication by others.
About your challenge at the end, I didn’t take the time to look at the links, but “dihydrogen monoxide” is another way to say H2O, and Guinea worms are those things that require you to pull them out from your skin slowly, using a stick that you wrap them around as they exit your body. Why anyone would want to save them is beyond me.
“Fun post — as someone who conducts scientific studies every day, I concur completely with your “basics” above” ——– Thinker
That’s a helluva compliment coming from you. Thank you.
Yup, that’s website dedicated to exposing the deep dangers of water!! lol You are also correct about Guinea worms. Both sites are Spoofs … to show how easy it is to fool people with scientific sounding articles, pics, jargon, etc. And, they do a pretty good job of it …. I believe Ms Freud just wrote a $30 check to the Save The Guinea Worm Foundation!
I think bogus science is simply a reflection of our society. Science used to be a rigid discipline, and people would publish data whether it supported their theory or not. Now, it’s all relative. The liberals have made moral relativism a way of life. This means you make up reality any way you want, and it’s okay to lie, cheat and steal to achieve what you want. Science, like everything else, is a victim. When lying becomes accepted (see Obama), then nothing is real or valid anymore.
@AWD – “Science is skewed in so many ways.”
I know the problems, and have been at this long enough to be able to tell an actual paper from some rushed grad students mostly faked research.
In the case of larger stories (like SSS’s marijuana) its almost absurdly easy to deflate the lie. The science used is based on belief, not actual observation. Like climate change their model/claims have a total inability to deal with conflicting evidence.
If your claims cannot answer difficult questions or dissenting opinions with anything other than silence, then your data is flawed.
Here’s a good rule of thumb: It the results were politically charged in any way, then they are skewed.
Stuck…Scientific research has shown that your article made SSS’s sphincter muscle tighten by a magnitude of ten !
Science replaced God. Then Liberals replaced science with moral relativism. Then Liberals declared themselves Gods….
The Road to Hell
Keynesianism is a fraud. Supply-siderism is a con. The dollar is a scam. All were developed by people with good intentions. But these good intentions not only paved the road to Hell, they greased it. There was no point putting on the brakes. Once underway, there was no stopping it. Right now, the US slides towards some sort of Hell. Half a century of deceit has produced a nation that is ready to believe anything … and go along with anything … provided it promises to make them rich.
They will be very disappointed when they discover that all the political means they counted on – the phony money, the laws, the regulations, and the wars – have made them poorer. That is when we will really need cages …
“Nothing in nature is evil,” said Marcus Aurelius. Keynes was human. Even Adolf Hitler was a man, a part of nature himself. And the Evil Empire, was it not created by men too, men who – like economists and politicians – followed their own natural impulses? Adolf may have erred and strayed. But he did so with the best of intentions: He thought he was building a better world. And he had all the “reasons” you could ask for. He could argue all day; “proving” that his plan was the best way forward.
Not that there weren’t arguments on the other side. What were smart people to do? People argued about Keynesianism for many years. Each side had good points. One was convincing; the other was persuasive. It was like a couple arguing in divorce court – the husband forgot to take out the trash and knocked over a vase; the wife ran him over with the family car. “He had it coming,” she says. What would an observer think?
No amount of logic could help him. Both parties made good points. All the judge could do was to fall back on his own deep sense of right and wrong, of proportion … and good taste. “She shouldn’t have run him down,” he says.
“Love the man, hate the sin,” say the Baptist preachers. They have a useful point. There’s no point in hating Adolf, Josef, Osama … John Maynard … or any of the other thousands of clowns who entertain, annoy and murder us. They are God’s creatures too, just like the rest of us. What they did wrong was what they always do wrong … they all resorted to political means, to get what they wanted.
We do not hate them; we just hope they get what they deserve.
Hat tip to SSS, he has been mauled on this issue and just keeps comin back for more. SSS keep diggen. It promises to provide much more entertainment. Hell I have enjoyed body slamming your weak ass and look at Stuck, he did a triple Lindy off the ropes on you…good times, thanks to all for the distraction
I have empirical anecdotal evidence that marihuana leads to sucking dick in public toilets. A senior in hs told us his friend accepted the offer of a guy in the park. The senior dude said he told his friend that he was “dirty”. The friend replied, but the money’s good.
Then there’s that apocryphal cautionary tale the guy at the S.Antonio zoo He was found unconscious with a large bag full of coins and a belly full of semen. Tell me, what was he collecting coins for? Time’s up, Marijuana, fool, Ganja, the devil weed.
Criminals…SSS? who’s done the most damage to the USA?
[img
[/img]