People who are having strokes tend to sleep a lot. It’s not the same thing at all.
Sick people need a lot sleep. Healthy people need less sleep. That’s what their study ACTUALLY shows.
Of course, “sick people need more sleep” would not make a click-catching headline, now would it?
So instead we CHOOSE to say “sleep causes you to be sick!” See how that works?
February 26, 2015 at 2:09pm
The research only APPEARS to contradict itself if you don’t understand the actual underlying studies.
Like this “study.” Does it really contradict earlier research? How?
Just because the author (and their journalistic running buddies) choose to “interpret” the findings a certain way to market “ground breaking blah blah blah” does NOT mean the ACTUAL underlying data and SUPPORTED conclusions are wrong . . . just “spun” way too far beyond what the data actually show.
“Showbiz Science” thanks Dr. Oz . . .
 February 26, 2015 at 2:05pm
First of all, as a research scientist please let me apologize for how far the discipline of science has fallen. From Anthropogenic Climate Change to Good Foods, Bad Foods nonsense I understand why my friends and neighbors distrust and disrespect “the scientific community.” That having been said . . .
On the other hand, the way their study was designed, the whole kerfluffle might be the (already well known) fact that sick people need more rest.
Yep- whenever two things say “A” and “B” are “Correlated” (like length of sleep and health) there are four possible explanations (to anyone who actually understands and uses the scientific method):
1. A causes B
2. B causes A
3. C causes both A and B
4. It’s just a coincidence (statistical artifact)
Now we ALL use sophisticated tools to rule out #4 (well at least most of us do), but NOBODY is intellectually honest about 1-3.
And, to add insult to injury, “journalists” don’t have the highest SAT/ACT scores on campus either . . .
The research only APPEARS to contradict itself if you don't understand the actual underlying studies.
Like this "study." Does it really contradict earlier research? How?
Just because the author (and their journalistic running buddies) choose to "interpret" the findings a certain way to market "ground breaking blah blah blah" does NOT mean the ACTUAL underlying data and SUPPORTED conclusions are wrong . . . just "spun" way too far beyond what the data actually show.
"Showbiz Science" thanks Dr. Oz . . .
 February 26, 2015 at 1:52pm
KILLED a calf.
The dog owners are at fault. In some states, murdering cattle used to be a FELONY.
 February 26, 2015 at 1:50pm
The asshats letting their dogs terrorize the innocent and slaughter cattle are the bad guys here.
The answer is pretty easy Oath. They are accomplishing their goals. You just don't understand their goals. And in accomplishing those goals, they could care less about trampling the constitution-- in fact that this one of their goals!
 February 26, 2015 at 1:37pm
“The problem with totalitarianism is the inescapable fact that the power to control your fellowman attracts more Hitlers than Ghandis.”
The problem with Common Core is NOT any particular flaw in this curriculum or that curriculum.
Nice try in changing the subject. Dissimulation and misdirection are, of course, part and parcel of selling progressivism . . . actual logic, reason, and fact take away from “the messaging.”
February 20, 2015 at 9:40am
Bloomberg is an entire industry built NOT on providing value to the marketplace but instead on RENT SEEKING and REDISTRIBUTION BY FORCE (taxes).
So yeah . . . The whole coal burning vehicle thing is right in their wheelhouse. This article is just another advertisement for a carbon credit scam. With wheels.
As to Apple quality . . . if the latest crop of dreck (the new iOS is PAINFULLY craptastic; right now forced to type at 1 wpm on my iPad) is any indication, Apple died with Steve. The new Klown King at Apple is bulletproof- came out of the closet just as the board was getting ready to cashier his sorry, incompetent azz . . .
A coal burning Apple car? No thanks. This is all about capturing tax dollars anyhow. Like all of Bloomberg’s crony socialism scams.
 February 20, 2015 at 9:31am
Note the story has been ginned up by a “service dog activist group” . . . College campii are full of bogus “causes” . . . and any “ism” you can spool up is worth huge street cred for these utes.
 February 20, 2015 at 9:27am
Maule (great acft OBTW):
The Auburn story is another case of butt-hurt over what constitutes a “service animal.” This is a “comfort dog” that the “veteran” takes into class with her to “soothe her anxiety.”
I for one am gettin a little bit fed up withthe fact that ALL MY STUDENTS ARE DISABLED AND GET SPECIAL TREATMENT nowadays.
Look, one of the reasons a 4year degree is damn near useless is because there are no standards any more.
Maybe- if this “veteran” needs a pet to sit in her lap eveywhere she goes- she just isn’t ready to go to college yet?
Analogy time: every false rape charge, every case of phony “racism” perpetrated by the self-proclaimed victims themselves- and yes, every boundary-pushing case of “disability” – erodes the impact of TRUE cases of rape, racism, and “acommodation” that need to be addressed.
 February 20, 2015 at 9:17am
Eggs scrambld in BACON GREASE!
Rollin Old School . . .
 February 20, 2015 at 9:09am
So add this to the “why does pocorn pop” type stories about how rapidly we are approaching the dystopian future of “Idiocracy.”
Yes, these are the same manganese nodules we all learned about in high school. No, there is really nothing new or even interesting about this.
However, real science is hard work, and the results of real science frequently challenge our cherished nostrums and make us uncomfortable. Real science is politically dangerous, and funding for real science is unavailable.
Therefore, what we are left with is gravy train riding, rent seeking charlatans who need to frequently “discover” kewl neuw know-ledge to keep the ride going. And they rely on the sorry state of government schoos and the low SAT/ACT scores of journalists . . . and general ignorance . . . to peddle this “research.”
The plummeting respect that the public holds for “scientists” like these is well-deserved. If more of us exposed thse charlatans for who they really were, the contempt of thepublic might rise to a level where this could change.
Veteran accuses 2 Auburn football players of harassment
Tomorrow ....70th anniversary Iwo Jima
Now you have some news.:0)
My dietary guidelines are this;
What ever a a government advisory committee says....do the exact opposite. ESPECIALLY when the term "environmentally friendly" is used.
I’ve got to drop this comment. I can’t stand it anymore…
The left hasn’t a clue, what “Environmentally friendly” is. If they want to see the real people who “recycle”, “care for their environment”, and have the smallest carbon foot print. Follow a right wing conservative prepper. That person will out do any left wing urban dweller in caring for the earth and environment ten fold. Conservative folks who hunt and prep, wrote the book on taking care of the environment. Leftist hipsters need to just “shut up!”
when we consider how often they consistently get dietary guidelines wrong [or based on lobbyists telling them what the government should peddle to the people] i am going to eat what i want... the key is moderation.. so bacon here i come
Glad I am not the only one to figure this out. What does the environmental agenda have to do with a healthy diet? If someone just reviews the original literature without an agenda, they will see that saturated fats belong in a healthy diet-everything we have been told to avoid. That Mediterranean diet that is supposed to be so healthy because it is high in fish and plant based foods?-It was an epidemiological study based on diet histories.......results taken during lent!!! Not much meat is eaten then, and therefore, the results were badly skewed against meat. (Nina Teicholtz-The Big Fat Surprise)
 February 19, 2015 at 2:41pm
Ummmm . . . .the switch to high fructose corn syrup was payola to the sugar cane producers in the USA. We slapped a “twice the market price” tarriff on imported sugar in order to save 50 jobs in Louisiana and Hawaii. To this day, the american consumer pays TWICE THE WORLD SPOT RATE for refined sugar.
Yep. Political payola to big money donors in Louisiana and Hawaii.
You can look it up . . . we are doing similar things with steel and ethanol also; with similar results. Less steel in US products and worse gas mileage in our cars . . . all to “save american jobs” doncha know.
 February 19, 2015 at 2:32pm
Mewnani- since discovering the gene that actually causes lung cancer, the scholarship (well, outside the AMA-controlled US) on lung cancer has changed dramatically.
The second-hand smoke research was always based on the (now found to be flawed) presumption of the causal link between smoking and lung cancer. The 80% figure is bogus; in any case, correlation and causality are very different levels of evidence.
Do people with the gene for lung cancer smoke more than the general population? Yes they do. Do people who never smoked at all get lung cancer? Yes they do.
Inconvenient truths indeed . . . however, it will take an actual genetic “cure” for lung cancer before the medical establishment int he USA to admit they jumped the gun a wee bit back when they drew the causal arrow between smoking and lung cancer. Kinda got it backwards.
And as I stated above, science is always changing. Nothing engraved in stone. Thank goodness they continue to evolve in science but the government wants us to accept global warming, right? Stupid is as stupid does as they shovel out multi feet of global warming!
while it may be overrated to the cancer risk to nonsmokers its is still a terrible annoyance to non smokers
February 19, 2015 at 2:23pm
Sigh. According to the actual research, they asked men to self-describe their behavior in social situations. Men with a longer ring/index finger combo CLAIM that they listen better, laugh more, are more supportive, etc. etc. Men with shorter ratios DO NOT CLAIM that they listen better, are more supportive, etc.
ONE explanation is that the ratio can predict actual performance. Another, equally likely (but much more plausible) explanation is that men with the longer ratio (higher exposure to testosterone) are arrogant, self-absorbed lying delusional a-holes.
But hey . . . doing REAL science that actually ANSWERS interesting questions is hard. It’s a lot of work. And your findings generally won’t bring you either fame (popular media repeating your dubious conclusions) nor fortune (government funding for more research).
So yeah- people toss together sketchy research and then claim broad, sweeping, important conclusions.
Y’All realize that journalism majors don’t exactly understand any of the things they report on, right? Especially when it comes to interpretating “scientific research results.”