, , ,

A 35 year study of rhesus monkeys on reduced calorie diets show that they don’t actually live any longer. Quelle surprise! Oh, and the 2009 study that came up with opposite result? Diddled the numbers to get those results, throwing out half the deaths. (At least one of the directors of that study has an admitted bias, and calls himself, “a hopeless caloric-restriction romantic.” Yeah, he has no motivation at all to fudge his study to make it confirm his pet theory.) In addition, more mice studies on restricted calorie diets show that while some breeds of mice live longer, others live shorter lives, and other have no change. Naturally, scientists are ignoring the data left and right, insisting that there’s something weird about the mice, that researchers who get results they don’t expect are doing it wrong somehow, without making concrete criticisms of methodology, and generally going, “No, really, calorie restriction is good for you, even if we can’t demonstrate it!”

This is not the scientific method. This is not science. This is confirmation bias in action.

And once again, I say, if they were right, they wouldn’t need to lie, including making shit up, making claims they can’t back, and diddling numbers. FAIL.