Skeptical? There’s a study for that

Register
Jul 9, 2014

 

There are things I believe to be true, yet when a study comes out to support my viewpoint, I don’t feel validated.
 
Studies are meaningless.
 
In the course of my lifetime I’ve been told coffee is good for you, coffee is bad for you, and back and forth at least three or four times; that eggs are bad/good for you; that margarine is much better for you than butter, and vice-versa; that a glass of red wine a day is good for your health/bad for your health; that milk is a vital part of/should be eliminated from your diet; that fat in red meat is bad, no, good, no, bad, no, ...

Good grief! I’ll tell you what’s bad: the countless “definitive” studies that contradict each other.

When I had bloodwork done prior to my kidney transplant, my doctors were impressed by my extremely low cholesterol levels. They told me it was obvious I’d paid a lot of attention to my diet (true) to avoid eggs, butter and the like (false).

For the last 20 years or so, as much as possible, I’ve eaten real food, made from scratch -- meat, fish, poultry, potatoes, rice, noodles, fresh vegetables -- cooked in a variety of ways to satisfy my palate. I’ll grill, steam, bake, fry, broil. I use canola and olive oils and nothing else. I make french fries by cutting up baking potatoes, brushing them with oil and heating them on a baking pan in 450-degree oven for 20 minutes. I’ll steam veggies, grill them or stir-fry them.

I use butter whenever I want, as much as I want. I eat eggs and cheese.

And yet my cholesterol level is low.

I believe -- and I’m sure one day there will be a study to “prove” it -- that fats, dairy, eggs, etc. by themselves don’t cause cholesterol. It’s all the prepackaged, additive-laden processed crap we we eat each day. I stay away from anything of which the ingredient list looks like an order for a chemical laboratory.

I may be wrong, but it works for me.

I’d like to see studies done to prove some of my other theories.

For example, there is no doubt in my mind that being awakened by an alarm clock is one of the most stressful things we do to ourselves. It’s bad enough that we’re awakened before our body tells us it’s had enough rest (we’re the only creatures on the face of the earth to get up before our bodies tell us to, which can’t be good -- there should be a study for that as well), but then the alarm clock literally JOLTS us out of our slumber. We spring awake suddenly, our heart pounding in our ears as the sane part of ourselves tries to return us to sleep while the alarm clock insists otherwise.

That CANNOT be good for you. Study, please.

Also, I believe that all the weird, documented “supernatural” events that occur from time to time, that absolutely happen with no apparent explanation, are not supernatural at all. These things are actually part of our natural world; we just don’t understand it yet.

That may not be worth studying, but it may be a better use of taxpayers’ money than such things as a study funded by the Navy and Air Force that determined that people in New York have a different dialect on Twitter than people in California.

Another study scrutinizes the average penis size in the gay community. (I am not making this up.)

I’ll bet there is a lot of money wasted on ridiculous studies.

And studies that purport to reveal a health breakthrough? Ten years later, a new study will conclude that the first study was wrong.

How can a study be right, then wrong, then right, then wrong?

Someone should do a study about THAT.

Then we can just sit back and wait for the follow-up that tells us the first study was wrong.

Comments

Contango

@ Mr. Ross:

As has been said: Taken to its logical conclusion, a skeptic must ultimately question his own skepticism. :)

Contango

*