Not quite the point jseal.

True, while many papers make it past peer review that shouldn't, and therefore, peer review doesn't guarrantee that something which passes is "good" science, just make it much more likely that it is "good" science.

Two real points here: Point 1. OK, there's been this study. How is actual science or the practice of medicine advanced in the first place? IOW, why study this at all? It's pretty much an irrelevant aspect of human interaction.

A couple of possible reasons: 1. Just some researchers spending grant money so they can spend grant money. Scientists have to eat too, you know. 2. A more nefarious possibility is that the scientists were paid to go looking for "evidence" that supported a hidden agenda. And if you for one moment think that isn't a possibility, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

More importantly, Point 2. Who is going to use this results of this study, and in what matter? Scientific knowledge is neutral, it just is what it is. However, the knowledge is never disseminated in a vacuum: it is always released into the world of human interaction, meaning that whatever the actual facts may be, there will always be those who will mis-use them for their own political ends.

When one digs down deep enough, one *usually* finds that the people who paid for the study got the results they were looking for; and when they don't, they find a way to twist the fact in their favor anyway.

So, no I wasn't questioning whether or not this was "good", as in, fact-based, empirically-derived science.

__________________
On the kinkometer, my kink measures as a sine wave.