On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 7:12:22 PM UTC-4, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
> > On 2014-05-06 5:49 PM, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>
> >> "Pete C." > wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> And you have citations to peer reviewed science that attributes any of
>
> >>> the obesity epidemic to hormones, steroids or antibiotics used in food
>
> >>> animals?
>
> >>
>
> >> Why is it that people who demand "peer reviewed science" never seem to
>
> >> proffer it first?
>
> >
>
> > Funny how that works, eh. The corollary to that is that those who are
>
> > quick to accuse others of lying are usually the same people who lie. They
>
> > know that they do it, so they assume that everyone else does too.
>
> >
>
> > It is also interesting to see what "peer reviewed" really means and how
>
> > it works in real life. Businesses have few problems finding people to
>
> > stick their names on articles written by writers.
>
>
>
> I would wager most people have no idea what "peer reviewed science" really
>
> means other than knowing that they should put a religious-grade belief in
>
> anything that happens to be peer reviewed. Nowadays peer review is a tool
>
> that the state can use to justify actions it wanted to take, a tool for big
>
> pharma and big ag to shove more magic poisons down our gullets, and I could
>
> go on but it seems pointless. People will believe what they wish, whether
>
> their religion is based on magical characters or the scientific
>
> priesthood.

You're a real half-wit.