by Casey | May 27, 2016 | Blog, Conspiracy, Media Bias, Science

We all know how modern, dependent upon further funding in perpetuity so we have jobs, ‘#science‘ goes. One week a #study will be released showing one result, and the next week another study showing the opposite result gets published. It’s been that way for years. Coffee is healthy, coffee is unhealthy. Eggs are healthy, eggs are unhealthy. It’s become so predictable that I routinely mock ‘studies’ like this on the program.

#Cell phones are one of those study subjects that I mock on a regular basis. For years, ‘scientists’ have been saying that cell phones cause various forms of cancers, infertility, and even psychological disorders. The following week, a counter-study will release the exact opposite results. That’s what happened this week again with cell phones, and the risk of you getting #cancer.

Study 1:

A study of 30 years’ worth of data has concluded that no link exists between mobile phones and brain cancers.

The study, out of Australia, pores over the prevalence of brain tumors since 1987, reports the Daily Mail.

During this 29-year period — a time when mobile phone usage has increased dramatically — there was no corresponding increase in cancerous brain tumors.

Going through 30 years worth of data seems like a good baseline to start drawing conclusions, don’t you think?

[Tweet theme=”basic-full”]Going through 30 years worth of data seems like a good baseline to start drawing conclusions, don’t you think? http://snip.ly/ewt5b [/Tweet]

That study was released the first week of May.

Study 2:

It’s the news everyone has been dreading: That little cell phone that people use all the time could cause cancer.

However, before you throw your phone across the room, the authors of the study have not said how the study’s findings on #rats can compare to effects on humans.

The National Toxicology Program study exposed rats to radiation emitted from our cell phones for two and a half years.

The rats exposed to the radiation developed more tumors in the brain and heart that could be linked to cancer than the control group, which was not exposed.

This study was released this week. About 20 days after the first study. The headlines on this study all state that the government says cell phones may or will cause cancer. They use the word ‘government’ to give the results heft and legitimacy. When, in fact, the opposite should be true. US government studies are often the most biased, least scientific studies that get published. They are frequently used as vehicles for new legislation. That legislation almost always is designed to elicit new tax revenue of some sort.

[Tweet theme=”basic-full”]They use the word ‘government’ to give the results heft and legitimacy. When, in fact, the opposite should be true. http://snip.ly/ewt5b [/Tweet]

The US government’s questionable ‘scientific’ studies are too numerous to count. They fund thousands of labs and researchers across the country. All wholly dependent upon federal funding to keep themselves from shutting down. Some of the most egregious examples of #pseudoscience from government #research is the false demonization of second-hand smoke, and now the false demonization of e-cigarettes and vaping.

So which of these studies should you believe is more accurate?

One uses 29 years worth of data, and finds no increase in cancer tumors though cell phone use has obviously spiked in human beings. The other exposed rats to cell phones, only the males developed cancer, and the researchers themselves admit they can’t draw a conclusion to these results with human beings. So who do you believe has the better conclusion?

No let’s look at the way the propaganda machine works in the American media industrial complex … better known as the MSM (main stream media).

Remember, these two studies were released in the same month, only weeks apart. So let’s do a Google search for ‘cell phones cancer’ and filter the results to only include the last month.

Page 1 of Google results. Notice anything?

On the first page of Google, only one link seems to challenge the narrative that a government study had shown a link between cell phones and cancer … a Twitter user.

Took me seconds to check SEER data. Cell phones ain't rare. Here's brain cancer incidence.https://t.co/dHgIBZ260D pic.twitter.com/KKbJgM0vQp

— Aaron E. Carroll (@aaronecarroll) May 27, 2016

In a sea of journalists, news outlets and agencies, an individual on Twitter is the only person pointing out the great flaw of this ‘study.’

Aaron is a fairly known health researcher who likely only made the front page of Google because he has over 22k Twitter followers. He’s the one beacon of hope on page 1.

That's not what the study says. But kudos on the scary headline! https://t.co/dHgIBZ260D https://t.co/SLJOp2PJFi

— Aaron E. Carroll (@aaronecarroll) May 27, 2016

Let’s see page 2 of Google’s results:

Page 2 of the results gives us three links highlighting the far larger, more legitimate study saying there’s no link between cell phones and cancer. Of those three, none are major media outlets, and one attempts to discredit the study in its title when it says “experts not sure.”

Furthermore, we learn that the study linking cell phones to cancer … in rats … well, only male rats … cost taxpayers $25 million! For $25 million we got a study where the researchers put cell phones next to rats, and the researchers literally said they cannot say how their findings would compare to effects on humans. Why are we funding this exactly?

At this point, I’d like to pause to remind you the National Toxicology Program is a program within the Health and Human Services department. As is the National Institutes of Health. The same people who spend tens of millions of dollars in largely silly research endeavors like if birds slur when they chirp after drinking alcohol. The same people who want $2 billion in new funds to fight the zika virus.

But wait … there’s more!

No research is worth anything unless it’s peer reviewed, and its results upheld.

Peer reviewer Dr. Michael S. Lauer doubted the findings, saying he was skeptical of the study’s claims.

“I suspect that this experiment is substantially underpowered and that the few positive results found reflect false positive findings,” he wrote.

Lauer had a particular issue with the fact that male rats in the control group, and therefore not exposed to the cell phone radiation, had a low survival rate. Only 28 percent survived the length of the study, and the average survival rate of rats in National Toxicology Program studies is 47 percent.

Researchers said they did not know how to explain that low rate.

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/news/nation-world/national/article80271547.html##storylink=cpy

Um … what?

Not only are the ‘study’s’ peer reviewers calling the results into question, there seems to be an unexplained issue with the survival rates of the rats involved in the research.

So, essentially, we paid $25 million (so far) to study a potential link to cell phones and cancer, we found no link, there’s massive problems with the study’s methodology and subjects, the researchers admit they can’t draw comparisons with their results and humans, but the media is peddling a false-narrative that a link has been found. Yep, another day in the pseudoscience industrial complex that is US government ‘research.’

[Tweet theme=”basic-full”]Yep, another day in the pseudoscience industrial complex that is US government ‘research.’ Via @CaseyTheHost http://snip.ly/ewt5b [/Tweet]

FYI, page 3 of the Google results yielded recognizable names in media reporting on the results of the 29 year study showing no link between cell phones and cancer, but none of these sources (while popular, and recognized) are what we’d call major media outlets. It wasn’t until page 6 of the results that a major media outlet’s reporting of the 29 study was presented. Research shows that 91% of internet searchers do not go past the first page of search results. Even though the study showing a link between cell phones and cancer is essentially garbage, 91% of people searching for information on the subject will assume a positive link had been made between the two simply because of the search results.

[Tweet theme=”basic-full”]Research shows that 91% of internet searchers do not go past the first page of search results. Via @CaseyTheHost http://snip.ly/ewt5b[/Tweet]