Beano: food enhancement or carcinogen?

[Dave U. Random]

Oh sure, they have a website and all. Beano
is the best thing since sliced bread.

http://www.beanogas.com/ "BEANO IS DIFFERENT AND BETTER."

"Unlike other gas medicines, Beano is a natural food enzyme dietary
supplement that can help prevent gas before it starts. Available in a
convenient tablet or liquid, Beano helps you digest the complex
carbohydrates in many of your favorite healthy foods - not just beans.
With Beano, you can comfortably enjoy nutritious foods that are an
essential part of a healthy diet."

But let's look at the darker side of Beano. My aunt liked her beans,
and frequently used Beano to avoid farting. She died of massive
colon cancer which had spread everywhere at the age of seventy.
Coincidence? I think not.

For obvious reasons, I'm using a remailer.

A.Lurker. A.nonymous.

[Jeffrey Lichtman]

Post by Dave U. Random
But let's look at the darker side of Beano. My aunt liked her beans,
and frequently used Beano to avoid farting. She died of massive
colon cancer which had spread everywhere at the age of seventy.
Coincidence? I think not.
A.Lurker. A.nonymous.

My mother drank coffee and eventually died from heart failure, so coffee
causes heart failure. My uncle liked to fish and died of lung cancer, so
fishing causes cancer.Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[axlq]

Post by Dave U. Random
But let's look at the darker side of Beano. My aunt liked her beans,
and frequently used Beano to avoid farting. She died of massive
colon cancer which had spread everywhere at the age of seventy.
Coincidence? I think not.

Coincidence - I think so.

My father in law died of colon cancer too.

The incidence of colon cancer is highly correlated with the quantity
of meat in the diet. If your aunt also ate a lot of meat, it
wouldn't matter to the colon how much beano she also ate.

-A

[Dr. Curmudgon Gee]

Post by axlq
Coincidence - I think so.
My father in law died of colon cancer too.
The incidence of colon cancer is highly correlated with the quantity
of meat in the diet. If your aunt also ate a lot of meat, it

[snip]

there is no study that proove meat causing colon cancer.
actually, vegitarians or people how eat a lot of fiber/vegi/fruit get it
equally. (i can dig out the reference if you'd like)

it is a mystery to me


regards,


Pam's Ode to Spammers & Telemarketers

May all spammers & telemarketers die an agonizing death; have no
burial places; their souls be chased by demons in Gehenna from one
room to another for 1000 years while listening to Bartok microcosmos +
Scriabin playing together.

[axlq]

Post by Dr. Curmudgon Gee

Post by axlq
Coincidence - I think so.
My father in law died of colon cancer too.
The incidence of colon cancer is highly correlated with the quantity
of meat in the diet. If your aunt also ate a lot of meat, it

[snip]
there is no study that proove meat causing colon cancer.

There is never any proof in science. Only support or
falsification. And there have been studies supporting a
cause-and-effect relationship; e.g.
Meat Consumption and Risk of Colorectal Cancer. JAMA. 2005;293:172-182.

Even before that, correlations have been observed between the
quantity of meat in a population's diet and the incidence of colon
cancer.

-A

[Peter Lawrence]

Post by axlq
There is never any proof in science. Only support or
falsification.

It's obvious you're not a scientist. In properly conducted experiments,
using well thought out and properly implemented protocols, a hypothesis can
be proven or dis-proven.

Unfortunately today, a lot of scientists tend to overreach in the analysis
of the results of scientific experiments and studies, a lot of which were
poorly designed and/or conducted.

But a properly designed and conducted science experiment can prove or
disprove a scientific hypothesis.


- Peter

[Gary Brainin]

Post by axlq
There is never any proof in science. Only support or
falsification.

It's obvious you're not a scientist.  In properly conducted experiments,
using well thought out and properly implemented protocols, a hypothesis can
be proven or dis-proven.
Unfortunately today, a lot of scientists tend to overreach in the analysis
of the results of scientific experiments and studies, a lot of which were
poorly designed and/or conducted.
But a properly designed and conducted science experiment can prove or
disprove a scientific hypothesis.

I'm not a scientist, but I can read. From the first hit searching
Google for "can you prove a hypothesis":

"A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a
hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more
observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be
true."

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

Other hits seem to generally concur, with some going into some detail
regarding mathematical and statistical models of degrees of
uncertainty.

-Gary

[Jack Moore]

Post by Peter Lawrence

Post by axlq
There is never any proof in science. Only support or
falsification.

It's obvious you're not a scientist. In properly conducted experiments,
using well thought out and properly implemented protocols, a hypothesis
can be proven or dis-proven.
Unfortunately today, a lot of scientists tend to overreach in the analysis
of the results of scientific experiments and studies, a lot of which were
poorly designed and/or conducted.
But a properly designed and conducted science experiment can prove or
disprove a scientific hypothesis.
- Peter

It is not accurate to say that an experiment can completely prove or
disprove a hypothesis. Hypothesis testing is generally concerned with
comparing a null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis.The statistical
tests used to determine whether the null hypothesis is accepted or rejected
are expressed in terms of the probability that the observed results could be
achieved solely by chance. This link gives a pretty good explanation of the
basics of the scientific method as it pertains to hypothesis testing.

http://www.experiment-resources.com/hypothesis-testing.html

It is because of this element of uncertainty involved in hypothesis testing
that scientists are always interested in whether an experiment can be
replicated with the same results, ideally in other labs with other
scientists.

Jack

[axlq]

Post by Peter Lawrence

Post by axlq
There is never any proof in science. Only support or
falsification.

It's obvious you're not a scientist.

Actually, I am a scientist.

It's evident you aren't.

Read up a bit of Karl Popper for starters.

Post by Peter Lawrence
In properly conducted experiments, using well thought out and
properly implemented protocols, a hypothesis can be proven or
dis-proven.

No, you aren't a scientist. There's a distinction between hypothesis
and theory also. Hypothesizing isn't what science is all about.

Scientific theories are never "proved". If a prediction fails, the
model has been falsified and must be re-thought or discarded. If a
model passes a crucial test, it isn't proven but only "corroborated"
and the process of testing must go on. That's how science works.

-A

[David Thuleen]

Post by axlq

Post by Peter Lawrence

Post by axlq
There is never any proof in science. Only support or
falsification.

It's obvious you're not a scientist.

Actually, I am a scientist.
It's evident you aren't.
Read up a bit of Karl Popper for starters.

Exactly. Here's a link:

http://elearn.uwc.ac.za/usrfiles/content/291321/documents/Popper_by_Mage
e.doc

Post by axlq

Post by Peter Lawrence
In properly conducted experiments, using well thought out and
properly implemented protocols, a hypothesis can be proven or
dis-proven.

No, you aren't a scientist. There's a distinction between hypothesis
and theory also. Hypothesizing isn't what science is all about.
Scientific theories are never "proved". If a prediction fails, the
model has been falsified and must be re-thought or discarded. If a
model passes a crucial test, it isn't proven but only "corroborated"
and the process of testing must go on. That's how science works.
-A

--
-------------
Dave Thuleen


"We do not respect people's beliefs; we evaluate their reasons. If my reasons
are good enough, you will helplessly believe what I believe. That is what it
is to be a rational human being. Reasons are contagious." -- Sam Harris,
author of The End of Faith

Bill Moyers talks with the fascinating Daniel Dennett:

ndex=0&playnext=1

[Peter Lawrence]

Post by axlq

Post by Peter Lawrence

Post by axlq
There is never any proof in science. Only support or
falsification.

It's obvious you're not a scientist.

Actually, I am a scientist.
It's evident you aren't.
Read up a bit of Karl Popper for starters.

http://elearn.uwc.ac.za/usrfiles/content/291321/documents/Popper_by_Magee.doc

Karl Popper has his opinions, I have mine. (And yes, I've read Karl Popper's
philosophical writings about science and scientific proof.)

;)


- Peter

[Frito Pendejo]

Post by Peter Lawrence

Post by axlq
There is never any proof in science. Only support or
falsification.

It's obvious you're not a scientist. In properly conducted experiments,
using well thought out and properly implemented protocols, a hypothesis
can be proven or dis-proven.
Unfortunately today, a lot of scientists tend to overreach in the
analysis of the results of scientific experiments and studies, a lot of
which were poorly designed and/or conducted.
But a properly designed and conducted science experiment can prove or
disprove a scientific hypothesis.

In theory, yes, but since conducting scientific experiments is very
expensive, and since funding often comes from parties with an interest
in the outcome (e.g., the meat industry vs. animal rights
organizations), the data from such experiments is automatically suspect.