"Pete C." > wrote:
> Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>>
>> Dave Smith > wrote:
>>> On 2014-05-06 5:49 PM, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>>>> "Pete C." > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And you have citations to peer reviewed science that attributes any of
>>>>> the obesity epidemic to hormones, steroids or antibiotics used in food
>>>>> animals?
>>>>
>>>> Why is it that people who demand "peer reviewed science" never seem to
>>>> proffer it first?
>>>
>>> Funny how that works, eh. The corollary to that is that those who are
>>> quick to accuse others of lying are usually the same people who lie. They
>>> know that they do it, so they assume that everyone else does too.
>>>
>>> It is also interesting to see what "peer reviewed" really means and how
>>> it works in real life. Businesses have few problems finding people to
>>> stick their names on articles written by writers.
>>
>> I would wager most people have no idea what "peer reviewed science" really
>> means other than knowing that they should put a religious-grade belief in
>> anything that happens to be peer reviewed. Nowadays peer review is a tool
>> that the state can use to justify actions it wanted to take, a tool for big
>> pharma and big ag to shove more magic poisons down our gullets, and I could
>> go on but it seems pointless. People will believe what they wish, whether
>> their religion is based on magical characters or the scientific
>> priesthood.
>
> Part of the problem is the fact that there are few players other than
> those with a vested interest who have the time or funds to do any actual
> research. Ag companies have a vested interest, NGO "public interest"
> groups have a vested interest, and government funded labs still have a
> vested interest tied to those of whatever party is in power at the time
> if they want to continue to be funded.

Of course this is correct. I don't think the parties matter that much any
more though - the big industries hedge their bets so that they get what
they want no matter who wins these shams we call elections. Universities
are not trustworthy either. What is sad is that I am labeled anti-science
even though I both believe in and use the scientific method in my daily
work, by people who think that by calling politically- and
pecuniarily-inspired research "peer reviewed" makes to true. This is the
religion of science and it is both sad and scary to see it in action.

So my recourse is to err on the side of caution when it comes to food and
medicine. After all, "Let your medicine be your food and your food be your
medicine." Other factors like air pollution, water pollution, and the
ultimate decay of society remain largely outside my ability to control.