Friday, July 03, 2009

How to tell total crap when you read it.

Somethings are really easy to research and prove, the support of slavery by the Democrats in the United States and the resulting racial genocide.

Many of Andrew Jackson's (D) speech's are published on line, his biography is published on line so his history as a slave trader (not just an owner) is well known. It is very simple to research the facts that Andrew Jackson claimed he was too stubborn to allow slavery to end during his presidency, that he used a donkey symbol to emphasize his stubbornness and that the Democrats still use this slavery supporting, genocidal symbol in politics today. Anyone with half a brain can easily research the genocidal history of the Democrats in the United States.

Few do, the sheep just follow their Judas goats to the slaughter.

What about more difficult issues?

I am a big believer in high protein diets. I believe a diet of 50% protein, 25% carbs and 25% fat is best for our nutritional needs.

Can I prove that? Not conclusively.

In 2003 Mary C Gannon wrote a research paper establishing that high protein diets were good for people with diabetes. Her diet had 30% protein, 40% carbs and 30% fat. Do a search on "Mary C Gannon" you will be impressed. The Joslin Diabetes center at Harvard changed their diet recommendations to a high protein diet, 30% protein, 40% carbs, 30% fat after this report was published.

This is a well done report. The most important thing in the report is the bibliography. That list of stuff at the end that tells you where the writer got their information.

Here are my rules of thumb for determining crap.

Is there a bibliography?

If yes, review the people and articles the bibliography cites. Wikipedia articles have crap bibliographies most of the time.

Do a search on the paper title and/or author to determine if these papers are peer accepted. If the paper is peer accepted it will be referenced in other papers by other authors.

Now look at this article on an Australian government website.

No bibliography. No references. A bunch of rules with nothing to back it up. The "anti-high protein" crowd is like this, their Dogma needs no evidence anymore than a genocidal political party needs to prove they represent minorities best.

If you believe crap without researching it and you are defending your beliefs with "that was a long time ago" or "everyone knows that" you are a sheep.

Now here is a reprint of some letters published in a journal.

Letters? Yep, look at the bibliography after the letter. Very kewl. Read down to the next page. Read the response. Read the bibliography of the response.

Ahhhh, so the research indicating that high protein diets are dangerous are based on research on the effects of high protein diets where renal problems exist and not in healthy people.

So someone reads a paper where high protein diets increase kidney problems in people with kidney problems and they make the "intuitive" leap that high protein diets suck.

This becomes medical Dogma that Johns Hopkins still spouts without any real supporting evidence.

Anyone hear the sheep baaaing?


Unless the research is brain dead simple to preform if there is no bibliography the information is crap.

If the bibliography is crap the information is crap.

If the paper is not being cited by other researchers, or the researcher is not cited the information is crap until it is peer reviewed and accepted.

Dogma like "high protein diets are bad" or "Democrats help the downtrodden" is fodder for sheep and nothing more.

No comments: