5 ms·

> Epoxy resins may very well have created the Diabetes epidemic, with genetic data backing it. That’s a ridiculous claim. The reason for the diabetes epidemic

> Epoxy resins may very well have created the Diabetes epidemic, with genetic data backing it. That’s a ridiculous claim. The reason for the diabetes epidemic has much more to do with the increase in sugar consumption than anything else, even if other factors might have contributed, like vegetable oils or the decrease in salt consumption. Throughout history people have gone to great lengths to exonerate sugar when the evidence is there in plain sight since early 1900s. No, it’s not the plastics and the diabetes epidemic isn’t that new ;-)

gowld 8y ago
Do you have any comments refuting the science of the article, or is your fiat declaration sufficient to resolve the issue?
- Alex63 8y ago
  The article makes no claims, scientific of otherwise, with respect to a "diabetes epidemic" and the possible role of plastics. "A separate study by the University of York in Britain that sought to assess the risks of microplastics to the environment, published Wednesday, concluded not enough is known to determine if microplastics cause harm." Both comments are expressing opinions that have nothing to do with the content of the article.
  - tzs 8y ago
    > The article makes no claims, scientific of otherwise, with respect to a "diabetes epidemic" and the possible role of plastics Wrong article. You are talking about the submitted article. He's talking about the article cited in subcosmos' comment.
- rhacker 8y ago
  I'm at the point in my life where I treat 99% of studies with a grain of salt. I've seen studies that we've held up for 45 years to be completely toppled. Even studies that are holding in the last 5 years where our current generation is "perfect" and doesn't make the same scientific blunders of yesteryear. Our stories in science classes of how "bad scientists" that ended up being right were killed is no different today. It's just that instead of the king calling for an execution our own subjects dismiss them. If you watch things carefully in the scientific world you'll notice that there are actually really just a couple people holding up claims and making millions of others follow suit. Even in the face of challenging data, we wait for the so called thought leaders to either embrace or reject the new information. If they reject it, so do the hordes. Yet how do we know these few are willing to take on the new information, and actually take it seriously, especially when so much money might be on the line for them. Humans keep saying they learn from their mistakes, but we don't as it always looks different. Instead of a king's desk it's now an iPad and online forum. It really takes generational shifts for our science to move. I think too that the reason pop-science and alternative medicine is so successful is because regular science is too quick to hold the wrong things up - they are holding up people not results. And that's our failure.
  - refurb 8y ago
    You have to remember the impact that grant writing has on how scientific findings are shared. Unless the author "spices up" the science, there is a good chance they won't get another grant and their lab will close. Example: "Levels of plasticizers in urine across the US" - maybe you'll get another grant Just take your original research, add in a few references to crappy studies that show a "possible link" to diabetes "Plasticizer exposure possible link to diabetes epidemic" - oh, yeah, you'll get grant now I know this because I helped write grants.
  - losteric 8y ago
    Your statement reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process. If you watch things carefully in the scientific world, you'll notice every domain has hundreds or thousands of people actively researching in the field. Some individuals are on the cutting edge, they define what is worth researching next (usually by themselves), but the accepted knowledge is based on mountains of research from all over the world. There are no authority figures. Science is iterative refinement of our understanding of the world through consensus acceptance of research results. I mean, this sentence: > Yet how do we know these few are willing to take on the new information, and actually take it seriously, especially when so much money might be on the line for them. is outright hilarious, and depressing, for someone who's done research. Scientists are smart people that care about advancing the frontier of knowledge - revolutionizing a field of research is the most desirable outcome. There is no money behind defending the status quo, because that isn't even science. Science is the metaphorical tree of knowledge. A solid trunk made of facts like "2+2=4" and "Apples fall off trees", while the cutting edge is unproven branches near the top that may not survive the year... but everyone in the field knows and expects that. The scientific process underpins every aspect of our modern era. It's how we went from room-sized computers calculating projectile trajectories to smart phones that support multi-player online virtual reality... in a single generation. > I think too that the reason pop-science and alternative medicine is so successful is because regular science is too quick to hold the wrong things up - they are holding up people not results Theory 1: Millions of academics across the world are united in a global conspiracy to do bad science Theory 2: Public education has failed this generation of Americans, and now the free market is just exploiting ignorance with snake oil
AndyNemmity 8y ago
There are several books I've read from the 1800s concerning it. I don't know what dictates plain sight, but it was certainly a concept even then.

gowld 8y ago

Do you have any comments refuting the science of the article, or is your fiat declaration sufficient to resolve the issue?

Alex63 8y ago
The article makes no claims, scientific of otherwise, with respect to a "diabetes epidemic" and the possible role of plastics. "A separate study by the University of York in Britain that sought to assess the risks of microplastics to the environment, published Wednesday, concluded not enough is known to determine if microplastics cause harm." Both comments are expressing opinions that have nothing to do with the content of the article.
- tzs 8y ago
  > The article makes no claims, scientific of otherwise, with respect to a "diabetes epidemic" and the possible role of plastics Wrong article. You are talking about the submitted article. He's talking about the article cited in subcosmos' comment.
rhacker 8y ago
I'm at the point in my life where I treat 99% of studies with a grain of salt. I've seen studies that we've held up for 45 years to be completely toppled. Even studies that are holding in the last 5 years where our current generation is "perfect" and doesn't make the same scientific blunders of yesteryear. Our stories in science classes of how "bad scientists" that ended up being right were killed is no different today. It's just that instead of the king calling for an execution our own subjects dismiss them. If you watch things carefully in the scientific world you'll notice that there are actually really just a couple people holding up claims and making millions of others follow suit. Even in the face of challenging data, we wait for the so called thought leaders to either embrace or reject the new information. If they reject it, so do the hordes. Yet how do we know these few are willing to take on the new information, and actually take it seriously, especially when so much money might be on the line for them. Humans keep saying they learn from their mistakes, but we don't as it always looks different. Instead of a king's desk it's now an iPad and online forum. It really takes generational shifts for our science to move. I think too that the reason pop-science and alternative medicine is so successful is because regular science is too quick to hold the wrong things up - they are holding up people not results. And that's our failure.
- refurb 8y ago
  You have to remember the impact that grant writing has on how scientific findings are shared. Unless the author "spices up" the science, there is a good chance they won't get another grant and their lab will close. Example: "Levels of plasticizers in urine across the US" - maybe you'll get another grant Just take your original research, add in a few references to crappy studies that show a "possible link" to diabetes "Plasticizer exposure possible link to diabetes epidemic" - oh, yeah, you'll get grant now I know this because I helped write grants.
- losteric 8y ago
  Your statement reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process. If you watch things carefully in the scientific world, you'll notice every domain has hundreds or thousands of people actively researching in the field. Some individuals are on the cutting edge, they define what is worth researching next (usually by themselves), but the accepted knowledge is based on mountains of research from all over the world. There are no authority figures. Science is iterative refinement of our understanding of the world through consensus acceptance of research results. I mean, this sentence: > Yet how do we know these few are willing to take on the new information, and actually take it seriously, especially when so much money might be on the line for them. is outright hilarious, and depressing, for someone who's done research. Scientists are smart people that care about advancing the frontier of knowledge - revolutionizing a field of research is the most desirable outcome. There is no money behind defending the status quo, because that isn't even science. Science is the metaphorical tree of knowledge. A solid trunk made of facts like "2+2=4" and "Apples fall off trees", while the cutting edge is unproven branches near the top that may not survive the year... but everyone in the field knows and expects that. The scientific process underpins every aspect of our modern era. It's how we went from room-sized computers calculating projectile trajectories to smart phones that support multi-player online virtual reality... in a single generation. > I think too that the reason pop-science and alternative medicine is so successful is because regular science is too quick to hold the wrong things up - they are holding up people not results Theory 1: Millions of academics across the world are united in a global conspiracy to do bad science Theory 2: Public education has failed this generation of Americans, and now the free market is just exploiting ignorance with snake oil

AndyNemmity 8y ago

There are several books I've read from the 1800s concerning it. I don't know what dictates plain sight, but it was certainly a concept even then.