Is this really cancerous?
There is good science and there is bad science. Before simply accepting every claim you hear as truth you have to know which is which!
Good science involves using a large test group, a large control group, is well designed to avoid as many potential alternative causes as possible but also recognizes those which the study may not be able to exclude, attempts to avoid bias, is repeatable — with many other scientific groups and studies getting the same results, — and those conducting the studies are forth coming with reporting test results and have complete transparency — they are willing to show and share their scientific proof and evidence and have absolutely nothing to hide.
Bad science uses a small test group (exception: when a small well designed test is done prior to spending or asking for large sums of money on a bigger study to show if it is even worth pursuing), may or may not have a control group, is poorly designed, is biased (therefore prone to making test results show whatever they want it to), fails to be repeatable by others, and they withhold or hide evidence to prove their claims.
Good science examines every little detail and dismisses nothing. Bad science ignores anything that doesn’t “fit” just right with their hypothesis (theory) and simply dismisses it.
Good science accepts sound test results — even if those results fail to support their hypothesis. Bad science refuses to accept any test results that does not support their theory and will dismiss them –focusing only those results which have even the slightest little detail to cling to that could be used as so called evidence — or even pseudo (false) evidence.
Take for example a single small study that uses rats as test subjects. The goal is prove whether or not a substance causes cancer.
However, when they decide to feed the rats the substance, they do not bother with ensuring that the rats are free of infections, also allow them to eat other potentially cancer causing agents, and don’t bother to test for cancer at all until after the rats have all died from old age.
First of all, they do not even know if the rats already have cancer. They don’t know if they have infections which leave them more prone to developing cancers. Additionally, rats are actually very prone to dying of cancer without any other causes other than that of old age — and cancer can even occur as early as one year of age — especially mammary and pituitary cancers. Because they allowed them to eat other potentially cancer causing agents, they have no way to prove that the substance being tested is the cause or if it was the other one instead. Then, they eliminated and dismissed the data for any rats that showed no signs of cancer post-mortem (after death) which were actually greater in quantity than those that did have cancers.
They present to the world (usually very dramatically) that the substance being tested is cancerous and should be avoided. They refuse to give all of their research data to the appropriate government agencies and guard their data closely not only from the governments but also from the scientific research communities world wide. Furthermore, hundreds of other truly well designed large scientific research projects, under taken before and since that singular poorly done small study, show no evidence at all of that substance causing cancer.
There is actually a particular so called consumer advocacy scientific research group (not based in the U.S. or Canada) that does this on a regular basis. In fact, every substance they have ever tested shows to be cancer causing — according their closely guarded shoddy research and methods — which in and of itself is proof that they are not to be trusted. They are nothing more than fear mongers and considered a joke in the real world wide scientific community. Yet, the world at large is showered with reports of their so called evidence and scientific proof on a regular basis.
Don’t believe a single research study, but review numerous studies and compare.
Do your own research to check whether or not their research is good science or bad.
Determine if they are transparent with sharing their data with the appropriate government agencies and the scientific community world wide or if they are trying to hide something.
Ask yourself was the study large enough, is it the only one of its kind, or are there many such studies and how do they stack up in comparison.
Be mindful of your own biases — don’t just accept those studies that only support your personal viewpoint and belief. If you want the truth, you have to be willing to look at everything and not dismiss a study simply because it doesn’t “fit” with your view.
Ask was it well designed and do they talk about any outliers (things that didn’t quite “fit”) and openly discuss the significance or insignificance of those outliers — or, instead, do they suspiciously avoid discussing or deny the existence of any such outliers.
Is there bias? To determine bias you have to know several key elements. Who are they? Where are they? Most importantly, who is paying them and why? What is their goal and purpose? Is it really their goal to help people or another purpose — Are they being paid to discover the truth or being paid to show only what is desired? Are they being funded by a particular interest or advocacy group, privately (i.e. food corporation, drug industry, the producer/manufacturer, or a health association) or are they funded through governmental or educational grants? If privately funded, what interest or goal does the funding source have?
Who reported the results? Did it come from a major professional scientific, medical, or nutritional journal? Is it being reported by a well known health or government organization such as WHO, FDA, American Cancer Society, Diabetes, or Heart Associations? Or was it simply reported on the news, in a newspaper, or online? Does the report include information on how to get direct access to the actual research data and scientific research report or at the very least an abstract? What does the research report and/or abstract say — or not say?
Again, be mindful of your own biases — don’t just accept those studies that only support your own personal viewpoint and belief. If you want the truth, you have to willing to look at every angle and question everything. Also, be open and willing to discuss the pros and cons of any conflicting reports — and ask yourself why they are different.
So, don’t believe everything you hear — nor should you believe it just because it was reported on major television news.
The following article provides a summary regarding research about the link between grilling meat, poultry, fish, and processed meats with various types of cancers. It also has sound food handling and safety guidelines, discusses techniques that greatly reduces the risks associated with grilling such as the use of marinades prior to grilling, and other valuable information.