This is an audio clip from Sober Podcast #247 sent to sober podcast members.
Now that we know that the alcohol industry has been funding some of the booze-related research, it just makes me wonder about studies and research in general.
and how most of us (me included) aren't able to determine whether a news article that claims to be based on a study, is actually fact, if it's been skewed, who paid for it, and what is the underlying agenda of the news media writer, or the original researcher.
in this audio, i start off ranting about booze research, and then I think that before i get myself into too much trouble, i will share some of my own biases, thought process, and numbers. how many people had i been penpals with before it was a paid thing? how many people did i interact with, see patterns, offer cheerleading to, before i started talking about what i saw? listen to this and find out.
see if there's something in here that rings true to you. other than the visual of me standing on my balcony with cold feet, wearing my pyjama bottoms and sweater, holding a clip-on microphone to my mouth. I also tell you about the little girl with the yellow raincoat that I see from the window.
I have posted below the ENTIRE 22 minute audio for this podcast, and I will leave this link available for 24 hrs only. Have a listen now. all i ask in return is that you post an anonymous message in the comments. If you’d like to be able to hear this again, you can use the link to sign up at the bottom of the post.
Comments from subscribers:
Inspired (day 606): "I feel the same way about research, critical thinking, agenda behind it and bias. Years ago, wolfie loved hearing research that wine was heart healthy and resveratrol in red wine was good for me. BRING IT ON, he said, we will just moderate drink. This topic reminds me of an interview with Katie Couric, a news anchor, I read a few days ago in the airplane magazine on a flight. She speaks about the difference in reporting on information versus affirmation. Are we only looking to affirm our beliefs in order to empower or strengthen them, or can we allow information in when we may not agree with it completely? Critical thinking and continuing to ask the questions around agendas and bias is important ..."
Jacci2 (day 82; medical professional): "... as a general rule, I ALWAYS take research cited by any journalist with a huge lump of salt. If I really want to know something, I'll go look up the research article myself and read it to discern whether or not it was a good study, whether or not it is generalizable to the public (they often are not, the journalist just extrapolates the data to apply to everyone even though the study group is limited and very specific), and who funded it. This drives me crazy. Journalists are not scientists and they make their own assumptions from the research and feed it to a gullible public. RANT ALERT! I had to do this recently for my boyfriend. His mom was all concerned about some article in a magazine about one of the meds he was taking for heartburn, saying it was going to give him kidney failure. I pulled up the original article, and it turns out the findings were only relevant if you are over the age of 65, are obese, have diabetes, and are already showing signs of kidney failure ..."
If you sign up for the monthly podcast subscription, this audio will be the FIRST one you get, if you sign up today (Tuesday). Then you can listen again. Save the MP3 file. Listen on repeat.
Sign up for the monthly podcast membership here
(1-2 new audios per week, you can cancel whenever you like ... but you won't. more sober tools = good)