It's really hard to find a credible study these days. Research is based on grants. Grants come from the government. Govenment is run by politicians.
My mother does tobacco research for a living. Every project she's ever worked on is aimed at making tobacco look bad. Let's face it, if she put in a grant to disprove some research, it would never get funded. No one wants to put the approval stamp on some pro-smoking research. That's political suicide!
I think that sucks. As a scientist, I'd like to see more unbiased studies...
-------
Another thing I'm reminded of is the "red wine is good for you" theories that started to pop up several years ago. Turns out evil alcohol could be good for you in moderation... But only red wine. Numerous theories were thrown around about the skins of grapes and such.
As more research was done, it became clear that alcohol in moderation (be it beer, wine, or spirits) is good for you. So why did we only cite red wine previously? Because red wine is often viewed as a "sophisticated drink". Who could ever think that a lowly beer drinker could profit from the same benefits as someone drinking red wine???
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks