We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
That's why wise people are always skeptics about "studies." Ten years ago, transfats were to save us from butter. Now, vice versa. Ten years ago, broccoli was good. Now, it's said to be carcinogenic. Ten years ago, the experts told us to avoid fats. Now they tell us they made a mistake; bacon is back and carbs are the bad thing (I think this seems correct from what little I know about insulin and carb metabolism). I take to heart little of what I read, but I read it anyway. Reading is recreational, often entertaining, and beats hard work.
Were I to live with no TV, no internet, and no newspaper, I think I would be a wiser man to simply focus on my daily experiences.
The things you listed are based on non-scientists "interpreting" scientific data by cherry picking bits and pieces that fit their political, social, or economic agendas and portraying those to the general population as "scientific fact".
Like the "study" that was reported in big print in newspapers about a decade ago that "shampoo causes cancer", which turned out to be 1 component in some shampoos that, when injected in highly concentrated form directly into the skin, gave a slight increase in the risk of skin cancer. The equivalent use of shampoo would amount to several hundred bottles rubbed into the skin of the head each and every day over a period of decades, but the newspapers of course didn't mention that in their headlines.
Now if you're talking about junk science, start with the IPCC and their ilk, mix in some eugenics, and you have enough to last several lifetimes.
Now they want more people to take statins - the more the merrier! Don't worry about the side effects - diabetes, cancer, neropathy. And don't bother to exercise or eat right. Just take statins and you'll be fine. Coffee was also bad for us; now it's good for us and it can even prevent diabetes. I could never understand how something that was made in a factory could be better for us than something that comes from a cow, so I never stopped eating butter. Just ignore the warnings and use common sense.
and there you've something that's actually true, at least in part.
There are genetic factors that help determine sexual preferences, and sexual nature.
Both are driven in large part by hormone balances, which vary between individuals, determined by a combination of genetic and environmental factors.
So an environment that would cause one person to display homosexual tendencies will not cause another to do so because of genetics.
Am I correct in understanding that no 2 females have spontaneously reproduced (with out borrowed sperm) nor 2 males either? Or did I miss that event on a slow news day?
So are you saying the environment may make someone gay? But without reproduction it would be a dead end.
Science has always been misused by individuals with an agenda by politicians and of course fraught with errors and incompetence. Just as people commonly believe what a computer produces to be true they also commonly believe that PhDs who "study" something are correct. After all they are PhDs, right? But who am I to complain, the science is settled, right?
"As we have reported here at Maggie's for many years, they [most scientific results] probably are mostly bunk."
In light of Albert Einstein's brilliant insights into relativity, Isaac Newton's contributions to science are apparently mostly "bunk" by your definition but hardly a reason for Isaac not to have announced them and, instead, to have waited until Albert could come along to set the old guy straight.
There's a vast difference between something being wrong and being incomplete, between being wrong and of no useful value, between being fraudulently wrong and being unintentionally so. And there's a reason why negative research results are reported less often than positive ones. It costs authors and researchers and their sources of funding a great deal of money to publish papers in journals. The not unsubstantial cost of publishing a negative result in most cases outweighs any direct benefit to the author if not to the whole field. Not only that, in many fields of research the current literature is already at or near the point of being too huge for researchers to follow. Add reports of negative results, which would undoubtedly outnumber those of positive ones, and the journals would be too huge and costly for people to read or subscribe to. Plus, the added burden on the (unpaid) reviewers for peer-reviewed journals to critique huge numbers of such manuscripts would be unsustainable.