Quote:

"Researchers" cherrypick data and build their own assumptions into their work. That's why having a professional statistian look at the methodology of a report often shows that it is propaganda rather than science.



Undoubtedly some do (cherrypick), but that's what the peer review process is in place to prevent, and yes, some researchers do jump the fence and turn in to advocates but that is the exception rather than the rule (unfortunately they get the press and the public considers them "scientists" when they're not). Remember that statisticians are "researchers" too and also live in a "publish or perish" world. Their objectivity is just as suspect (not to mention that they have the mathematical vocabulary to be truly esoteric and obscure). The research community is far from perfect, but I still think the crux of the problem lies with the insidious politicos who would fault the results of an experiment for using a 90% confidence interval rather than a 95% one (the main complaint of the infamous 1993 report), and then reach into their arsenal of logical fallacies/rhetorical devices and effectively declare to the world, "See! They're lying to you! Secondhand smoke's not bad for you at all!"

Oh, yeah, and how about those helmet laws, huh?