"People who eat organic food are 25 per cent less likely to get cancer, according to a study of almost 70,000 volunteers.
Researchers say that pesticides in conventional fruit and vegetables can cause cancer, suggesting that going organic helps to prevent the disease."
Cue Norman
Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
"p-0''0-h the cat (coder)" posted
The study doesn't show anything at all, and least of all that people who eat organic food are 25 per cent less likely to get cancer. Not even the researchers claim anything of the kind.
Exactly.
It might have been a bit more honest had the first line of the Reuters report been accurately quoted:
"People who eat more organic foods may be slightly less likely to develop certain cancers, a French study suggests."
And if all the hedging and provisos had been indicated too. Like:
"researchers don?t have a clear picture of whether organic foods free of these chemicals can help lower the risk of cancer"
and
"people who ate the most organic foods were more likely to be married, have higher income and education levels, consume less red and processed meat, and drink less alcohol".
But what can you expect from those who delude themselves and suffer from untreated confirmation bias?
On 23 Oct 2018, Norman Wells wrote (in article ):
And you don?t come under any of those categories?
Never mind.... Better luck next time.
Oh! wait.......
You don't seem to realise that the point of that statement is that those factors are already associated with a reduced risk of cancer and that eating organic food has not itself been shown to reduce the risk.
In scientific terms, there is no control group in the trial.
On 23 Oct 2018, Norman Wells wrote (in article ):
Oooops, potential drop in perceived class status narrowly avoided.
On 23 Oct 2018, Norman Wells wrote (in article ):
Only under one condition - and that is if the science is unbiased.
Science funded by multinational corporate businesses with profit as their priority from skewed scientific results is bogus science.
They can channel the funding through as many offshore shell companies as they like, but it is still bogus science.
You mean bogus science.
Unbiased scientists who tend to come to an inconvenient conclusion (aka the truth) are ridiculed and humiliated by an expensive and high pressure media campaign, until they quit the job and take early retirement.
I would consider that an improvement on being duped by the power of money.
On 23 Oct 2018, Norman Wells wrote (in article ):
In other words, he can?t, and he won?t.
In fact he can?t even be bothered to quote a link to an unbiased scientific paper which backs up his own statements.
Hi is so up himself, that we plebs must take everything he says as the truth without question.
Exactly. The proper design of scientific tests ensures that. And it's precisely why the results of the trial we're considering aren't worth the paper they're printed on. There has been no attempt to isolate eating organic food from any of the many other possible causative factors of cancer. It's a fundamental and fatal flaw.
No, I mean all the many studies that have been carried out by scientists with no agenda and no axe to grind, in properly designed trials, none of which have shown any significant advantage tastewise or healthwise between eating organic produce and the corresponsing conventionally produced items.
That's why you're prepared to pay double of course.
Takes all sorts.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.