It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Scientists and Researchers Bribed to reach a specific conclusion....

page: 2
26
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 07:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: BiffWellington
"Science is not always what scientists do."

- J. Allen Hynek


Sadly too true.
Like most people scientists have families to feed.
Corporations don't employ researchers who don't give them the results they want.
Science for the sake of science has become the realm of a precious few who either don't need a job or are willing to live like paupers on principle.




posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80




Also just because it has been recorded as happening, it does not mean every study has to be branded as such.


No...but it does provide an incentive to be skeptical about any "science".



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Exactly.
And why some of us have just taken a common sense approach.

If a big company, that basically has a monopoly on their industry, ie monsanto, nestle, is telling me something is "safe" for me, I avoid it like the plague.

Listen to your own body. Pay attention. You'll be better for it.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 08:53 AM
link   
This is a good reason why studies since the 60s have to include conflicts of interest.

They should also have to state who financed the research, if anyone.

It's another example, too, of why you never bother reading studies from affiliate groups. You just know what studies from PETA, the Tobacco Research Foundation, the Sugar Foundation, the Florida Orange Growers Association et al are going to find.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Sremmos80




Also just because it has been recorded as happening, it does not mean every study has to be branded as such.


No...but it does provide an incentive to be skeptical about any "science".


Not at all! If all 'science' was bogus, you wouldn't be posting this on the internet from your computer with 8G of DRAM etc.

What it SHOULD provide an incentive to do is to learn how to critically read papers, and ask the right questions.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: DonVoigt

Yes any food is fuel and machine will keep on spinning, but question is for how long. High quality fuel and oil will keep on engine run forever. But if you use cheap fuel in which they add water or whatnot to make more money and if you don't use oil or you use cheap oil, guess what? You probably have 100 miles in your engine, after that ur done.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Can you explain PETA? Are they agro company that sell seed or vegetables? Or how do they make money? I can't believe you put them in same basket as tobacco company, must be you love meat and need to ignore all signals to keep on loving it.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: saadad

Don't get me wrong, I do eat what i want be it a snickers bar and a can of pop or vegetables and water or a beef sandwich. I do have a relativity descent diet, I eat some well rounded meals and some of the meals I eat are indulgent. Something I learned from an old Greek guy that I used to work with was, everything in moderation is good. If you eat snickers bars and pop everyday yes your engine will break down faster. When I say that I eat large meals it's because my energy demands require it, my job is physically demanding and it requires the energy levels that I fuel up at. But by no means do I eat tons of garbage to supply those energy demands.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: DonVoigt

In your reply there is lots of data wrong.

First one is that you don't need large meals for energy and mass people proved that by intermediate fasting. Statement "everything in moderation is good" is just alibi to eat crap.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: saadad

No actually it was his alibi to drink wine



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: saadad
Can you explain PETA?

Not Bedlam but I think it has to do with all the meat/animal products are bad for you "studies".

One more thing, nothing lasts forever. I've yet to see a 125 year old vegan.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

No, average person that lives in a city will eat industrial meat. That is meat produced for masses with antibiotics, grow hormone and in environment that is hazard for everyone health. Now you can talk that you buy meat from well known farmer who grows animals for years. Give me a brake, they also want to make money and if they can grow chicken in 14days why would a farmer spend a year? And how much will that chicken cost.

Please open your eyes and i m not vegan, i understand that they are selling us crap for their own profit.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: saadad

Guess you missed the point. No matter how healthy you eat you will die so, your example of good oil in a motor running forever is false.

Also, didn't say you were vegan. That part is related to why bedlam included PETA in his list, not you personally.


edit on 14-9-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
IMO, diet should be looked at from the perspective of "what would I find in the wild?"

(1) Fresh water is of the most immediate importance, and where it is found there's usually more than we need

(2) Edible leafy green vegatation is second most important and is normally found in abundance (if we know where to look)

(3) Other vegetation which yields fruits, grains, edible roots, nuts & berries is also abundant, but not as much as the greens, so it comes third

(4) Edible animal life is listed last, since vegan choices can potentially replace meats, and acquiring meat in nature requires hunting rather than just gathering. Meat would not necessarily be an every day treat when living in the wild.

Something like raw sugar cane would be an occasional treat - we wouldn't be consuming it by the pound. However thanks to modern convenience we have spoiled our diets in favor of things that "taste good." I have heard more than one person say they don't drink water because they "don't like the taste." This is simply preposterous - and extremely childish!


So basically, the proportions found in nature should be how our diet is structured... and if you can't find it in nature more or less ready to eat, then we simply don't need it. A poor diet will affect your health sooner or later, and a doctor will not likely prescribe food as medicine.


edit on 14-9-2016 by DeReK DaRkLy because: ...



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Of course iI didn't mean you will live forever if you use high quality fuel. I just wanted to point you will last longer. Or let me get more specific, if you care what you eat you have higher chances you will have a quality life and live longer than if you don't care what you eat.

And i still dont understand how PETA gets money, are they selling something? Tobacco industry sells tobacco, sugar industry sell sugar, pharmaceutical industry sell drugs, please explain how is PETA in same basket? What they want to sell us?

And for the record iIthink PETA is wrong on many scenarios they promote, but still iIdon't see them in same basket as tobacco company. t
edit on 14-9-2016 by saadad because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: saadad

Not necessarily. Genetics plays a big part.

I do believe Bedlam said PETA does studies, not that they are selling anything. Although moral superiority in exchange for a donation might fit that description.


edit on 14-9-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: saadad
a reply to: Bedlam

Can you explain PETA? Are they agro company that sell seed or vegetables? Or how do they make money? I can't believe you put them in same basket as tobacco company, must be you love meat and need to ignore all signals to keep on loving it.


Must be you're a vegan, and will believe any paper thrown your way, as long as it's by PETA!


Seriously, PETA funded research is easily amongst the worst science you'll ever see, whether it's from PETA, CSPI, PCRM or any of their other front organizations.

Because they are True Believers, like the Tobacco and Sugar guys. It's not just "money involved", you also get pathological science when the investigating group has invested their self images in the thing coming out one way. PETA funded research will ALWAYS prove their viewpoint. It's a bit like "creation science".
edit on 14-9-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords
Then are you saying this study below (amongst others) is just lying to us?
www.sciencedaily.com - Fruit consumption cuts cardiovascular disease risk by up to 40 percent -- ScienceDaily...

Dr Du said: "Our data clearly shows that eating fresh fruit can reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, including ischaemic heart disease and stroke (particularly haemorrhagic stroke). And not only that, the more fruit you eat the more your CVD risk goes down. It does suggest that eating more fruit is beneficial compared to less or no fruit."

The researchers also found that people who consumed fruit more often had significantly lower blood pressure (BP). Eating fruit daily was associated with 3.4/4.1 mmHg lower systolic/diastolic BP compared to those who never ate fruit. Dr Du said: "Our data shows that eating fresh fruit was associated with lower baseline BP. We also found that the beneficial effect of fruit on the risk of CVD was independent of its impact on baseline BP."

Seriously people. I really don't care. I kenw someone lived to 100 and ate a lot of crap over the years. Broke a lot of rules. You wouldn't believe. The one thing he did though is worked hard in his life. Married and had kids. He also grew some of his own food. THAT is the key to a long life, if there's one. Just use common sense and don't get obsessed. Live big and be responsible.

I think the people who examine this too closely are mistaken. And also "Cowards die a thousand times in their life. The brave die only once."

What you should be asking is do you enjoy your life? Comfortable with you? That's what matters, not how long you live. That's pure vanity.
edit on 9/14/2016 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1   >>

log in

join