Why statistics are a false and dangerous way to manipulate Human Life and Health

Are you a statistic? - Healthwise,do you base what you eat, drink, and your behaviour on statistical data?

Well welcome to the scientific New World Order - And its really not so new - I was once reading that Lenin [first leader of the Soviet Union, Socialist
Republic, aka: Russia] loved statistics - Favotite tool of Socialists, than and now, to manipulate Humans, to control their behaviour and keep them
on the leash of government control.

I ask you Man, would Evolution ever have progressed if the early cells that were at its beginning were subject to statistical control?
- No, Evolution would have been dead almost before it began if statistics got in the way.

If you follow these gurus of medical health who base their advice on statistics You find you are inside a rabbit hole where almost any diet that
deverges from the one they are currently preaching is both dangerous and unhealthy.

I say 'Statistical Man' is a fallacy - That Human life, like nature and Evolution itself begs, yes demands, variety.

And what is good for them - may not be good for you !

I am not a statistic but have no doubt that on the day I die - Some statistical priest will try to blame my death on a statistic,
some eating pattern or behaviourism that they statistically established as unhealthy.

Sometime I wish I had a lot of money to play with - I would conduct a statitical analysis of people who follow so called healthy eating and behaviour patterns vs. those who pay no attention to it - And which group do you think would have the greatest longevity?

I bet you they would find little or no difference !

What do you think

a reply to: AlienView

I had a talk with a friend about a week ago we tried to come up with ways we weren't a statistic, the conversation wasn't very long.. We are all in some way a stat to someone's agenda.

Psychometric Variables are a very powerful tool. I assume this method was used during Trumps election campaign via Cambridge Analytica.

Its overwhelming for me to read the internet these days, as these methods cause confusion.

Life is a gift, only we know the truth.

a reply to: AlienView

You need to understand that statistics paint a general picture, within which there is scope for a lot of individual variation. The classic (behaviour-related) example is smoking. Statistically, heavy smokers die around 10 years earlier than non-smokers, but you'll always find someone whose granddad smoked 40 a day and was still running the London marathon at the age of 103. If you're a smoker, you'll take this as proof that smoking isn't harmful, while ignoring the bigger picture - that in general, heavy smokers die around 10 years earlier than non-smokers.

It's not so much that "Statistical Man" is a fallacy - rather, it is about the fact that you can't make highly accurate predictions for an individual based on statistics. Having said that, if I was trying to decide whether or not to start smoking, I would use the evidence of statistics rather than the anecdotal evidence of one guy and his one-in-a-million granddad.

I've used smoking as an example here, but you can apply the same principles more widely, I'm sure. At the end of the day, it is pretty much a lost cause trying to change people's behaviour. Some people are not going to change, regardless of how persuasive the evidence is, so there is no point wasting your own time and effort in trying. It's their life - let them get on with it, and let them accept the consequences of their actions.

originally posted by: lacrimoniousfinale
a reply to: AlienView

Statistically, heavy smokers die around 10 years earlier than non-smokers, but you'll always find someone whose granddad smoked 40 a day and was still running the London marathon at the age of 103. If you're a smoker, you'll take this as proof that smoking isn't harmful, while ignoring the bigger picture - that in general, heavy smokers die around 10 years earlier than non-smokers.

I'm very proof that this is true, not being the 103 marathon runner but being the smoker that says what's an extra 10 years? Could be the very best years of your life.. actually a pretty good stat number there.

originally posted by: lacrimoniousfinale
a reply to: AlienView

At the end of the day, it is pretty much a lost cause trying to change people's behaviour.

This is the point of the OP. Why in the world would you WANT to change people's behaviour? Give people the information, the REAL information, and let them choose.

To OP, the only means a non-local government has to get information on the people they govern is by statistics. This is one of the reasons why our Constitution is so important. Individual > Local gov't. > State gov't. > Federal gov't.

a reply to: AlienView

I agree. Eleventy percent of people would agree with you, the other thirtieth percent will burn heather and chant, that's the nature of the pharmaceutical industrial complex.

We evolved over millions of years without snake oil, sure we need cancer treatments and immunization but you can't just throw placebos or multivitamins at someone and say 'you owe me twenty bucks' without proof. Bangers and mash with greens (for those who aren't British that means sausages with mash potato and Brussels sprouts and more vegetables) will give a boost of iron, calcium, folate, Vitamin K and so forth.

If our species lasted this long without supplements, why do we need them now? ka-ching.

a reply to: lacrimoniousfinale

Actuually I had smoking as one of those behaviours that statistics 'prove' as harmful, right?

With cigarette smoking, particularly heavy smoking, the evidence is hard to dispute.

And of course people should be warned about dangerous behaviour - But to whose benefit in the long run?

What I mean is if you stop all those people who would have died sooner - whose going to pay for them to live longer?
- The argument was that smokers are costing society much more money because of increased health cost, DUH?
But the're dying younger, less healthcare, less Social Security, less Medicare, less Medicaid
- Now who is really costing society more money, smokers, or statistics being used to stop them from smoking?

OK, the 'way to hell is paved with good intention" and statisticians mean no harm - But none the less the harm is bieng
done - A friend of mine, a fairly healthy lifetime smoker in his 70s and lower income could not move into a very
affordable federally financed housing complex because he would have to sign a lease saying he would not smoke
in his own apartment because 'the Federal Government' passed regulations outlawing smoking, even if inside only
your own place - On the guise that a contrived statistic finding that second hand smoke is a leading health hazard
- And that it is possible smoke will 'leak' between apartments - Of couse who wants to live in a 'leaking apartmen'
anyway - Is the Federal Gov trying to hde that they are really in the slumlord business? - But at least the're smoke free!

- Give me enough time and money and I bet you I could prove that broccoli is unhealthy - In fact an unusual statistic
I came across said vegetarians had higher rates of colon cancer.

Next we should talk about Eggs - Google 'eggs and cancer' and see what comes up.

You see there is no end to it - Meanwhile sugar, which if you want to go by what we know, is one of the unhealthiest
foods you can eat and yet the world is already addicted to it - so forget about that one.

You see what I keep wondering is - Is statistical health guidelines really accurate? How unbiased are they?
What kind of people allow themselves to be monitored in statistical studies? Are these people themselves
somehow different than the 'individualist'' who you could not coerce to even participate in such analysis?

I am not saying to disregard all data that statistical analysis may yield - I'm just saying it sould be taken
with a grain of salt - Oh, yes and one of the longest living peoples in the World, the Hunzas, eat a lot
of salt - Tell them it is statistically bad to eat a lot of salt !

- AlenView

a reply to: AlienView

I ask you Man, would Evolution ever have progressed if the early cells that were at its beginning were subject to statistical control? - No, Evolution would have been dead almost before it began if statistics got in the way.

Primitive man looks West, sees herd of antelope. Primitive man looks East, sees no herd of antelope. Primitive man goes West. It was a numbers game for survival.

a reply to: AlienView

Well, first of all, its important to understand that there are statistics, and there are statistics.

What I mean by that is, that some statistics are generated in order to discover and better understand the level of diversity in a community, society or nation. These sorts of statistics are supposed to be used to offer better public services when generated by governments, and to offer more targeted products and advertisement in the event that the statistic is generated by companies.

But then you have other statistics. These are gathered with a specific task in mind, deliberately skewed to prove what ever the investigator wants to prove, or to show whatever they want to show. These are often manipulated. The only way to have really valid stats, is to:

a) Avoid taking a sample of the population, and always actually record the status or opinion of ALL members of a society, or give it up as a bad job.

b) Never start the process from an ideological position which would prefer one result over another.

c) Do not dumb down or bullet point the results. Things must be as simple as they can be, but no simpler, so a great man once said, and statistics lose their value, if you tell everyone else what they mean, rather than giving them the data for them to work out for themselves.

a reply to: AlienView

You can make statistics support any argument you have, if you know how to manipulate them properly.

Recently listened to the TEDradio hour podcast about how numbers lie. It was REALLY interesting and disturbing. Now when I here statistics (or any numbers in relation to polls and whatnot) thrown at me I can’t accept them at face value. I suppose I never should have accepted anything without doing my homework first.

I remember learning in statistics that you can use statistics to prove most things. It just depends on how you analyze your data, the sampling size, how many outliers there are. Then what are the results that are actually being shown, is it the mean, the median? Do they report the standard deviation? The level of error they used?

a reply to: AlienView

Have heard that 91.37% of statistics used online, are 87.32% totally made-up!


Some other guy told me that there were 3 kinds of liars:
1-Liars.
2-Damn liars.
3-Statisticians.

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: AlienView

Have heard that 91.37% of statistics used online, are 87.32% totally made-up!


Some other guy told me that there were 3 kinds of liars:
1-Liars.
2-Damn liars.
3-Statisticians.

LOL.

And one final fact that every statistician, believer in statistics and skeptic alike, will have to accept:

Until proven otherwise - 100%, not 99.9% - but `100% of all, not some, but all, biological life forms, end up dead.

and whether having statistical knowledge will actually prolong life remains to be proven.

Again, if I had the money for it, I would like to do statistical analysis of people who follow health guidelines based

upon statistics vs. those who don't give a damn - And see who lives longer.

- AlienView

originally posted by: AlienView
And one final fact that every statistician, believer in statistics and skeptic alike, will have to accept:

Until proven otherwise - 100%, not 99.9% - but `100% of all, not some, but all, biological life forms, end up dead.

and whether having statistical knowledge will actually prolong life remains to be proven.

Again, if I had the money for it, I would like to do statistical analysis of people who follow health guidelines based

upon statistics vs. those who don't give a damn - And see who lives longer.

- AlienView

Sorry, but not too many would accept that "fact".
It's more of a belief, claim, or opinion.
Also: proving doesn't quite work that way.
One can't just make a claim, then declare that it is truth until proven wrong.

Are we familiar with 100% of all biological life forms? We are not.

Back to your OP:
It would seem wise to consider the statistical data, along with ones metabolisim, family history, and to watch how we react to cetain foods.

Personally don't give a whole lot of creedence to stats coming from any govt, 'big science", nor any corporations.

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: AlienView
And one final fact that every statistician, believer in statistics and skeptic alike, will have to accept:

Until proven otherwise - 100%, not 99.9% - but `100% of all, not some, but all, biological life forms, end up dead.

and whether having statistical knowledge will actually prolong life remains to be proven.

Again, if I had the money for it, I would like to do statistical analysis of people who follow health guidelines based

upon statistics vs. those who don't give a damn - And see who lives longer.

- AlienView

Sorry, but not too many would accept that "fact".
It's more of a belief, claim, or opinion.
Also: proving doesn't quite work that way.
One can't just make a claim, then declare that it is truth until proven wrong.

Are we familiar with 100% of all biological life forms? We are not.

Back to your OP:
It would seem wise to consider the statistical data, along with ones metabolisim, family history, and to watch how we react to cetain foods.

Personally don't give a whole lot of creedence to stats coming from any govt, 'big science", nor any corporations.

OK, show me a life form that is 'immortal' - that does not die?
None have been found to date.

And when you say: "It would seem wise to consider the statistical data, along with ones metabolisim, family history, and to watch how we react to cetain foods."

True - And that's part of the whole problem with trying to create a statistialcal model for Man.

Back in the 1960s, after years and years of debate as to the harm of tobacco, and especially cigarettes, the United
States Surgeon General, after years of collecitng 'data' statistics released the report [I believe it was around 1963]
concluding that there is a correlation between cigarette smoking and lung cancer - even though they said the
assocition could not be proven as causitive. - I read some of that report - Heavy cigarette smokers [2.5 packs a day or
more had 20X the rate of lung cancer - Still I wondered [back then if you are old enough, you could remember 'chain
smokers' who were smoking as most people breath - what would you expect? - Lungs were not made to breath smoke.
- But I've always wondered, not all those people developed lung cancer - And how do statistics account for people
who were not in the study that collected the statistical data? - Paradoxically the same Surgeon General report found
that lifetime pipe smokers who did not inhale, actually lived slightly longer than non smokers -
And pipe smoker who did inhale lived as long as non smokers.

But the 'fix was in' - It didn't take long for the anti-tobacco people - they soon ran one study after another to 'prove'
that all forms of tobacco were very dangerous - Getting to the point where in some parts of California, if not the whole
state, you can not smoke outdoors in a park because a wiff of tobacco smoke is considered a major health hazard to
a non-smoker!

Marijuana is now legal in California - Why does cynical me keep feeling that a drug that stones people [ a tranqulizer
for the masses] is legal while tobacco, a mildly mentally stimulating drug, continues to be demonized ?

And like with alcohol leading to Prohibiion at the beginning of the 20th Century, where 'they' had concluded that the
'slightest amount of alcohol' was very dangerous to your healh - and could show you statistical proof of this,
feel that statistics are still a weapon of those who believe 'thery' have the right to enforce their agendas?

Like I said earlier, check out 'eggs and cancer' and you will find the statistics supposedly showing that serveral forms
cancer are direclty related to eating eggs !!! - They gave up on the eggs, cholosterlol, and heart disease paradigm as 'facts' proved [for now] that that was false.

originally posted by: AlienView

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: AlienView
And one final fact that every statistician, believer in statistics and skeptic alike, will have to accept:

Until proven otherwise - 100%, not 99.9% - but `100% of all, not some, but all, biological life forms, end up dead.

and whether having statistical knowledge will actually prolong life remains to be proven.

Again, if I had the money for it, I would like to do statistical analysis of people who follow health guidelines based

upon statistics vs. those who don't give a damn - And see who lives longer.

- AlienView

Sorry, but not too many would accept that "fact".
It's more of a belief, claim, or opinion.
Also: proving doesn't quite work that way.
One can't just make a claim, then declare that it is truth until proven wrong.

Are we familiar with 100% of all biological life forms? We are not.

Back to your OP:
It would seem wise to consider the statistical data, along with ones metabolisim, family history, and to watch how we react to cetain foods.

Personally don't give a whole lot of creedence to stats coming from any govt, 'big science", nor any corporations.

OK, show me a life form that is 'immortal' - that does not die?
None have been found to date.

And when you say: "It would seem wise to consider the statistical data, along with ones metabolisim, family history, and to watch how we react to cetain foods."

True - And that's part of the whole problem with trying to create a statistialcal model for Man.

Back in the 1960s, after years and years of debate as to the harm of tobacco, and especially cigarettes, the United
States Surgeon General, after years of collecitng 'data' statistics released the report [I believe it was around 1963]
concluding that there is a correlation between cigarette smoking and lung cancer - even though they said the
assocition could not be proven as causitive. - I read some of that report - Heavy cigarette smokers [2.5 packs a day or
more had 20X the rate of lung cancer - Still I wondered [back then if you are old enough, you could remember 'chain
smokers' who were smoking as most people breath - what would you expect? - Lungs were not made to breath smoke.
- But I've always wondered, not all those people developed lung cancer - And how do statistics account for people
who were not in the study that collected the statistical data? - Paradoxically the same Surgeon General report found
that lifetime pipe smokers who did not inhale, actually lived slightly longer than non smokers -
And pipe smoker who did inhale lived as long as non smokers.

But the 'fix was in' - It didn't take long for the anti-tobacco people - they soon ran one study after another to 'prove'
that all forms of tobacco were very dangerous - Getting to the point where in some parts of California, if not the whole
state, you can not smoke outdoors in a park because a wiff of tobacco smoke is considered a major health hazard to
a non-smoker!

Marijuana is now legal in California - Why does cynical me keep feeling that a drug that stones people [ a tranqulizer
for the masses] is legal while tobacco, a mildly mentally stimulating drug, continues to be demonized ?

And like with alcohol leading to Prohibiion at the beginning of the 20th Century, where 'they' had concluded that the
'slightest amount of alcohol' was very dangerous to your healh - and could show you statistical proof of this,
feel that statistics are still a weapon of those who believe 'thery' have the right to enforce their agendas?

Like I said earlier, check out 'eggs and cancer' and you will find the statistics supposedly showing that serveral forms
cancer are direclty related to eating eggs !!! - They gave up on the eggs, cholosterlol, and heart disease paradigm as 'facts' proved [for now] that that was false.

We do not know of immortality. Seems an abstract concept.
Even our definitions of Life, may change someday.

As to "known" life: we have found some mind-blowing extremophiles in recent years.
We have no clue as to how long an endolith might live.

Yes: remember house parties with open dishes of loose cigarettes, because the chain-smokers couldn't be arsed to open the pack every time. A new cig was lit from the butt of the previous one: hence the term chain-smoking.

Seems the tobacco itself isn't addictive, it's the added ingredients in commercial tobacco products.
Watching what they're gonna try to add to mj, and the associated propoganda that they will market.

Will perhaps look into the eggs and cancer you suggest, but get easily turned-off from that kind of "info-mercial" stuff.
Don't hold the WHO in any kind of special high regards.

Trying to stay away form "food products", with a UPC code anywhere near them.

What are your favorite sources for nutrition info?

a reply to: Nothin

"What are your favorite sources for nutrition info?"

The internet is a gigantic data bank of information - One of the things yoour computer and/or online cell phone is really

good for is looking up any and all diseases, symptoms, medical and alternaive treatments and cures - And drawing your

own conclusions on how to act on your health.

- This applies too to diagnoses and treatments offered by regular medicine - I am amazed at how often a doctor
prescribes a drug, and even after it is supposedly reviewed by the regular phamacist you might be using, is given
in wrong [too high] dosage and contradictory to your condiiton and with other drugs you may be using for health or
whatever reason.

Medicine and doctors are overtaxed and you must be your own healh advocate - Check everything you are prescribed
and over the counter and supplements you might be taking - A good source for this is:

Drug Interactions Checker
www.drugs.com...


For supplements and vitamins and to see if they are appropriate for your condition and/or they might interact with
medical prescripitons - My favorite source is:

WebMD
www.webmd.com...