List of anti-science websites

faethor

faethor

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
5,144
Reaction score
1,243
Brian Dunning has compiled a fairly good list of top 10 worst websites for 'scientific' reporting. His number 1 was an excellent choice www.naturalnews.com.

Whenever www.wnd.com does something 'science' related it's fairly bad. That site would be on my list.
 
@Redrumloa,
It might not be legally the best move to put someone into prison for drinking raw milk. (Doubt it's ever happened. ) However, your point is a legal one, not a scientific one.

The science question is one consumption of potentially dangerous foods. Hands down there is less bacteria in pasteurized milk. Some bacteria may be healthy. But, others such as E.Coli, salmonella, and Listeria are harmful to humans, and potentially deadly to those with weakened immune systems, such as elderly and toddlers.
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/94980484.html
 
@faethor
My point is Natural News is an alternative view that is needed. My introduction to Natural News was around the Rawesome dairy raids that were conducted in military style and not only did they destroy dairy products, but destroyed ALL products including produce, meat ETC. They seized ALL cash and accounts, arrested the owner and put him in jail with a multimillion dollar bail. Rawesome was NOT selling raw milk to the general public, only to private club members.

Yes that is political, but it is all related. In 2013 you cannot separate politics from science. As for raw milk itself, it should be a person's choice. For hundreds of years doctors prescribed raw milk for many ailments with great success. Big pharma doesn't make money so it must be shut down. Natural News doesn't suck the big one of big pharma, so they are classified as the worst site. I have some issues with Natural News, but they are far from the worst. Quite the opposite, really.
 
redrumloa said:
Yes that is political, but it is all related. In 2013 you cannot separate politics from science. As for raw milk itself, it should be a person's choice. For hundreds of years doctors prescribed raw milk for many ailments with great success. Big pharma doesn't make money so it must be shut down. Natural News doesn't suck the big one of big pharma, so they are classified as the worst site. I have some issues with Natural News, but they are far from the worst. Quite the opposite, really.
Click to expand...
I'll disagree that one cannot separate politics from science. I think we'll find many laws and positions in society that are against what may be the scientific better option. One easy one I can think of is hemp. It's a hugely useful product and blocking it because it looks like pot has no scientific justification. Especially today we can, at worst, do a genetic test to ensure the crop is really hemp and not smokable. This law is for the ease of law enforcement, nothing whatsoever having to do with science.

As for Natural News, good science is not dictated by market or businesses. So the claims to not being with Big Pharma may be true. However, that neither validates the science of Big Pharma nor of Natural News.

Here's a great example: Vitamin C kills every virus known to man It goes on to claim it Vit-C is a cure-all. It supposedly cures lead poisoning, heart disease and cancer. It then cites Linus Pauling, who was basically disgraced over the poor quality of work he did over Vitamin C. Maybe you like the one sentence correct - it cures scurvy - in the article? That's about the only validity there. (Bit of a history lesson for Natural News. The 'father' of curative vit-c cancer treatments - Linus Pauling - died of cancer. There's some good science.)
 
faethor said:
The 'father' of curative vit-c cancer treatments - Linus Pauling - died of cancer.
Click to expand...

At ninety-three! Having won a couple of Nobel Prizes (one Chemistry, one Peace) and still considered one of the most important scientists of all time - so "disgraced" might be rather hyperbolic.
 
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Brian_Dunning

By profession I am a computer scientist

http://skeptoid.com/about.php

seems well qualified to make assessments on scientific veracity of everything...

The sting also netted Brian Dunning, eBay's second biggest affiliate marketer. The company had paid Hogan and Dunning a combined $35 million in commissions over the years, court papers say. Both men have since pleaded guilty to wire fraud.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/ebay-the-fbi-shawn-hogan-and-brian-dunning-2013-4#ixzz2WKJsTU2Z
 
this is interesting... i agree that science and politics are so interwoven anymore they cannot be separated... and while i'm convonced thats a mixed bag of fruit some good some bad it has helped to make some things better... we lost our manufacturing jobs, but our air is a bit cleaner.. i dunno... i too enjoy reading the natural news site too, but like all advice i get, i do my own legwork as to discerning the truth... is natural news quackadoodle in its take on milk? maybe, but it seems to be based on a plethora of peer reviewed research so while their "opinions" on the sciences' meaning; may be hysteria-filled or seem hyperbolic at times it doesn't necessarily negate its truthfulness... personally i believe if more people knew what nasty ass stuff went into their food we'd all be brandishing pitchforks...

he said huff post has crap science on it too

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/dairy-free-avoid-this-pop_b_558447.html

heres some science supporting what that crackpot believes

http://www.betacasein.net/default.htm
 
redrumloa said:
Yeah because drinking raw milk should result in life in prison without possibility of parole :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Milk is safer pasteurized

The final proof of the benefits of pasteurized milk came when Straus began providing milk to an orphanage that had seen death rates as high as 42% from tuberculosis and other milk-borne diseases. The orphanage was located on Randall's Island in the East River. All the milk it used was provided by a single herd of cows kept on the island, so it was easy to control the milk the orphans drank. Straus started pasteurizing the orphanage's milk in 1898. Within a year, the mortality rate dropped to 28%, and continued downward in the years that followed.


raw milk is usually quite safe using modern dairy cleanliness standards, but there is still a risk,
and if you want to make cheese, you need raw milk
but, if you want to make a raw milk type cheese, you want raw milk

The government trying to stop raw milk and cheese sales, and treating it as a criminal offence is stupid policy

Demonstrators in New York rage over US ban on French cheese mites


as an alternative to pasteurization, milk could be irradiated, works for other foods too, should be required for ground meat and poultry, would stop salmonella contamination and make organic foods safe
 
metalman said:
Milk is safer pasteurized

raw milk is usually quite safe using modern dairy cleanliness standards, but there is still a risk, and if you want to make cheese, you need raw milk
Click to expand...
Cheese is dependent on milkfat, not on bacteria. So while skim can work, whole milk is a better choice. Pasteurized and homogenized milk works to make cheese. You don't need to use raw milk. Raw can impart diseases. Though some claim raw tastes better.

I'd like to see more food irradiation as well.
 
faethor said:
Cheese is dependent on milkfat, not on bacteria. So while skim can work, whole milk is a better choice. Pasteurized and homogenized milk works to make cheese. You don't need to use raw milk. Raw can impart diseases. Though some claim raw tastes better.

I'd like to see more food irradiation as well.
Click to expand...

Since 1949, the US government has forbidden the sale of cheeses made from unpasteurized milk unless the cheese has been aged at least 60 days

raw milk cheese types

It's a preference, just like some people prefer organic foods, but like organic foods you take a higher risk of getting sick if you eat them
 
Thanks for the follow up. The pasteurized cheese thing I remember from a few years ago when my wife was pregnant. She was joking about how too overly cautious people can be about things, especially around pregnant women.

Speaking of anti-science and pregnancy there's LOTS of wivestales around pregnancy. Such as telling the sex of the baby by the heart rate. Or how the baby is carried will tell the sex. These things are typically right about 50% correct. (Aka not at all.);)
 
cecilia said:
the gop hates science
Click to expand...
No, they just hate it when reality disagrees with them. They are happy to grab it on the rare occasions it agrees with or could be construed to agree with their beliefs. It's really just information management though. People can only make informed choices based on the information they have (and not on the information they don't have). Making sure people have the information you want them to have is a good way of getting them to make the choices and decisions you want them to make.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top