>politics are peer reviewed >Rife with corruption, lies

>science is peer reviewed
>Pure, 100% true no one is lying or corrupt
Is this your attempt at being funny?

>>8947931
>Pure, 100% true no one is lying or corrupt
You're clearly not familiar with academic politics.

>>8947988
>>8947991
>t. globecucks

You guys are smart, use your noodle

File: keys.jpg (254KB, 427x553px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 427x553px

>>8947931
Never heard of Ancel Keys?

>>8947998
fuck off, you aren't funny

>How does one reconcile these diametrically opposed revelations?

By realizing that not 100% of science publications are 100% you fucking imbecile.

do you mean math
science is a dirty baby

>>8948003


>Yudkin ended the first Chapter: "I hope that when you have read this book I shall have convinced you that sugar is really dangerous." This message was extremely unwelcome to the sugar industry and manufacturers of processed foods and these firms employed a number of methods to impede Yudkin's work. The final Chapter of Pure, White and Deadly lists several examples of attempts to interfere with the funding of his research and to prevent its publication. It also refers to the rancorous language and personal smears used by Ancel Keys to dismiss the evidence that sugar was the true culprit.

>Keys wrote, for example:

>"It is clear that Yudkin has no theoretical basis or experimental evidence to support his claim for a major influence of dietary sucrose in the etiology of CHD; his claim that men who have CHD are excessive sugar eaters is nowhere confirmed but is disproved by many studies superior in methodology and/or magnitude to his own; and his "evidence" from population statistics and time trends will not bear up under the most elementary critical examination. But the propaganda keeps on reverberating..."[35] "Unfortunately, Yudkin's views appeal to some commercial interests with the result that this discredited propaganda is periodically rebroadcast to the general public of many countries."[36]

>The efforts to discredit the case against sugar were largely successful, and by the time of Yudkin's death in 1995 his warnings were, for the most part, no longer being taken seriously.

What a fucking asshole

>>8948584
Was he wrong, though?

>>8948629
How about you go look at the metabolism of sugar? To this day, most people don't see what's wrong with how much sugar we eat, even though the metabolism is being taught in high-school.

>>8947931
Science is politics now thanks to the libtards

>>8947931
The vast majority of papers these days are complete frauds as you need to publish to get funding/tenure or anything really these days. Peer review is completely broken for a lot of things, especially medicine. Tons of fraud there that went unchecked because of academic politics and corruption.

In fact I would say academia is far more corrupt and filled with deceit than politics as you typically have to be transparent in politics so can't get away very long with corruption unless you're the top of the top. http://anothersb.blogspot.ca/2014/02/goodbye-academia.html?m=1

>>8947931
Nobody assumes what you said.
The real redpill is finding out that peer review is not even better in general at finding the truth than if some random guy just decided to publish experiment results.

>>8948671
This. Peer review means a lot of different things depending on the journal. If it's a good journal, peer review means experts in your field with a solid understanding of the methodology you are using analyzing your paper for weaknesses. A mediocre journal will have experts in your field review it, but they don't have a solid understanding of the experimental techniques and whatnot that you're using simply because they do different shit, so if your protocols are totally out of line they won't know and that shit will get a pass. And for some shit tier papers, peer review means your credit card payment went through and your email didn't bounce.