Here is the first page of what was "TheScientificDebateForum-" over on MSN:
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."
Source: John F. Kennedy (http://www.quoteworld.org/quotes/7643).
"As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities." Voltaire (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/v/voltaire.html).
"The best 'defense' is often a disingenuous, outrageous, and outright stupid 'offense.'" - HansSelyeWasCorrect
What is presented on this forum are my views, and the views of those who wish to state their opinions (on the message boards). What is sought here is a "free flow of ideas," unencumbered by any preconceptions whatsoever. My desire is to create a forum that is focused on evidence (especially the kind that examines underlying mechanims), rather than other things, such as "public health" concerns. It is ironic, however, that public health "experts" never seem to fear the possibility that the underlying assumptions that form the basis of their recommendations might be incorrect, and in that they may be doing tremendous harm and little, if any, "good."
Here, the issues will remain "academic." In academia, it is common to "agree to disagree;" thus, you should consider this site a "marketplace of ideas" only. Needless to say, Caveat Emptor. This is also a reason for my anonymity, that is, I want the evidence to "speak for itself." It is my belief that those who have "open minds" and are willing to spend some time thinking about the issues raised here will come to the same, or similar conclusions that I have.
Yet it is also quite possible that I will modify my views at some point. Too many these days see such an action as a "sign of weakness," and instead stubbornly cling to notions that become less and less tenable as time proceeds. "Science" is not written in stone, but many have this view, consciously or not. I am constantly reading and re-reading research related to the issues on this site, and I've found that this is the only way to become something of a real "expert" on a subject. Memorizing a textbook is a good way to appear to be an expert, but my sense is that one is more likely to become a cult leader than a scientific expert with this approach. And this is why I selected the "newsgroup" format as opposed to the standard web site. I want you to be part of the process. Present your questions or a piece of evidence you have come across, and let's have an intelligent discussion.
On the left you will see links to assorted essays that I have written (with citations from the scientific literature). I plan to add or even change these works over time, as my understanding develops. What I've discovered as something of a "thinkaholic" is that over time I realize that I've gotten "stuck" because I need to "think outside the box." But as soon as I am able to escape from one I find myself in another. Perhaps most people would find this uncomfortable, but I now understand that this is the only way to progress, though I am only speaking for myself.
My latest "outside the box" realization is that "inflammation," which is the big "buzzword" these days in biomedical circles (an entire episode of the PBS's "Charlie Rose" show was dedicated to it, with several "experts" discussing it), is not only equivalent to arachidonic acid overload syndrome, but also can be a very different phenomenon, depending upon the fatty acid you have in your cells. In the context of the "typical American diet" however, the phenomenon is clear, though due to intense specialization in biomedicine these days, the situation is very similar to the old story of the three blind men and the elephant. Just as in that story, I come across study after study where the "expert scientists" can't seen to grasp exactly why they are perceiving what they come across in their specialized way of viewing things. A good example is the following:
Contrib Nephrol. 2006;150:144-51.
Being an Inflamed Peritoneal Dialysis Patient - A Dante's Journey.
Carrero JJ, Axelsson J, Avesani CM, Heimburger O, Lindholm B, Stenvinkel P.
"Patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD) suffer from a high incidence of cardiovascular disease as compared to healthy individuals, and a markedly increased mortality that cannot fully be explained by traditional risk factors. Recent evidence suggests that end-stage renal disease is a state of systemic inflammation and oxidative stress, both of which appear to play an important role in the development of cardiovascular disease..."
Now you may be asking yourself, "didn't the ancient Greeks talk about inflammation? How can it be different?"
It is likely that the "inflammation" they witnessed was due to severe injuries, often inflicted during battle, and not the kinds of chronic inflammatory problems that are much more common today, and that are only known because of our technology (such as the inflammation seen in arteries with those who have "heart disease"). Moreover, studies of native Greenlanders who ate very large amounts of long-chain omega 3 PUFAs (EPA, DHA, and DPA) suggest that instead of problems with what Western doctors call inflammation, they had tissue degeneration from the kind of inflammation (which is much less obvious to the "naked eye") that one would encounter on such a diet. A third kind of inflammation, which involves a quick burst of what is normally thought of as inflammation, followed by a quick resolution, seems to be what one encounters if one's cells possess the omega 9 PUFA, Mead acid, intstead of omega 3s or 6s.
Therefore, a reasonable interpretation of the data is that almost all "chronic disease" in the West and Westernized societies is really the epiphenomena of the arachidonic acid overload condition.
It is somewhat disconcerting to see, on a near daily basis, the reports about "inflammation" being the "cause" of all kinds of "disease," and yet few look further, to see if the inflammatory process can be modified through diet. Just today was the following report, for example:
"The approach grew out of a novel explanation, quickly gaining followers, for the mechanism of nerve damage caused by multiple sclerosis. Instead of concentrating on the alterations that result in autoimmune assaults on the nervous system, researchers led by Brian Popko of the University of Chicago have focused on a set of factors that prevent recovery from the inflammatory attacks.
A series of papers from Popko's lab has demonstrated that interferon-gamma -- a chemical signal used to activate the immune system -- plays a critical role in damaging the cells that produce myelin, the protective coating that lines healthy nerves. Interferon not only leaves these cells, called oligodendrocytes, incapable of repairing the damage but can also kill them directly."
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060511084528.htm
This is essentially my position as well, but I go further and argue that it appears that if you allow your body to make it's own polyunsaturated fatty acids (instead of consuming ample amounts of them in your diet), the "inflammatory" response in your body will be optimal: a quick burst followed by a quick resolution, and that "diseases" like multiple sclerosis will be incredibly rare if everyone followed this advice.
When I teach the history of modern science, which places a great emphasis on the scientific method, I point out to students that the "Coperinican Revolution" was important not just because he was correct on the heliocentric point (and actually was incorrect about circular orbits), but because he demonstrated that "outside the box" thinking could lead to great "progress" in human understanding of the natural world. In his day, there was a religious institution that could take the lives of those who attacked accepted notions (see the book, "The Cheese and the Worms," for example), but today there is a different kind of impediment, which has to do with how "knowledge" becomes entrenched in textbooks, among other things. If this knowledge has passed the test of the scientific method, there is no problem, of course, but if it has been directly refuted in a properly designed experiment, as the "essential fatty acid" claim was in 1948, then one has to wonder which mode of repression of the scientific method is more effective. It is my hope that I can make many more people aware of the importance of not taking "short cuts" and instead adhereing to the scientific method, than seems to be the case presently.
Not even Albert Einstein was "immune" to this "trap." He would not accept the underlying concept for quantum physics, and so contributed nothing to it, because of his opinion that "God" does not "play dice" with the laws of nature. It did not matter to him whether experiments could be done to verify the claims, because he simply refused to consider the possibility, which is something that is about as unscientific a posture as any person could adopt in this context. This sort of attitude will not be tolerated on this newsgroup. People can disagree on reasonable interpretations, but one must accept the scientific method or else admit that it is no longer an issue of science. If Einstein would have said that he held religious beliefs that precluded him from accepting quantum physics, then he could "gracefully bow out" of that realm of endeavor, but instead he wanted to "have it both ways." He wanted to be able to ignore scientific findings whenever they displeased his sensibilities, yet have his verified findings enshrined in physics textbooks as established scientific theory. This episode may be one of the most important in history for those who want to understand the scientific reality of a particular phenomenon.
In the biomedical and nutrition areas, the problem is greatly magnified. I'll provide an example from a show about emergency medicine that appeared on The Learning Channel. A doctor had a patient that complained of pain in the neck/head, but he found no cause and all the other "medical professionals" she consulted thought it was a psychological problem. He decided to walk her out to her car on her last visit (as she was going away to college), and he noticed that she was driving a 1957 Chevy that had been completely restored. He told her that he really liked it and she asked him if he wanted to take a ride.
As the were driving around the area, both developed symptoms, and it turned out that it was a leak of carbon monoxide that was causing her physical problems. Now, what if she owned an unattractive car that had a leak? She might be in a mental ward right now (or dead)! The problem, as is obvious here, is that "medical professionals" cannot control for every factor, as is required by the scientific method, and yet they act as if they have done so, which is where horrible mistakes can be made. If one has not taken the time to control for all reasonable factors, and yet if one (as a medical doctor or "expert") decides to advise people in a way that it appears to be the only intelligent option and involves highly toxic drugs or risky therapies and procedures, then the "first, do no harm" principle of the Hippocratic Oath is being violated.
A common notion, which is a great example of what can result when variables are not controlled for, is the "saturated fat raises cholesterol, and thereby raises your risk of heart attacks" claim almost every American adult has heard at least once. It came about when statistical correlations were made between a few "markers" deemed possibly relevant and rates of what were considered "diseases," leading to the concusions that there seemed to be a connection between those (of certain nations only) who had higher serum cholesterol levels and a higher incidence of "heart disease." Another piece of evidence used was that, in a particular dietary context, some dietary saturated fatty acids tended to raise choleterol levels, at least slightly and for at least a short period of time. From these fragile threads, an entire tapestry of ridiculous nutritional advice was woven.
In these early studies (1950s and 1960s in particular) little if any attention was paid to nations whose people consumed large amounts of coconut products. Lard is about 39% saturated and the nutritionists decided to call it a "saturated fat," while coconut oil is about 92% saturated. Chicken fat is not that much less saturated than lard. Thus, is this claim about "saturated fat" was accurate, peoples consuming large amount of coconut products should have very high rates of "heart disease" and high levels of serum cholesterol as well. The reality is and was the exact opposite, regarding "heart disease," but some of these peoples do have serum choesterol levels deemed "high" by Western "experts." See “Cholesterol, Coconuts, and diet on Polynesian atolls,” by Prior, et. al., in Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 34: 1552-1561, 1981, for example.
It is now known that oxidized cholesterol is the problem, and that there are easy ways to avoid having dangerous amounts of it in your body (even an AHA spokesman, Dr. Richard Stein, has made this point explicitly). But this was not understood in the 1950s or 60s, and instead of keeping their minds open, those in charge of the medical institutions have not informed the general public, in any major public relations announcement, that the old notions are incorrect, and that instead of avoiding saturated fatty acids or food that contains cholesterol, one must avoid cholesterol-containing food that is cooked in certain ways and also food that can oxidize the cholesterol in your body (such as many highly unsaturated oils). The claim that LDL is "bad" is still very common, and yet, if not oxidized, LDL is very important, lowering the risk of cancer, for example (when compared with those who have low LDL levels). To further compound the problem are the conflicts of interest that exist, and since cholesterol lowering "medication" is a huge profit-making business, this indeed may be playing a major role now.
Ignoring the scientific method, which is quite simple and can almost be called an extension of basic reasoning skills, leads to such situations. For some reason, perhaps because it is much simpler, it has become very common in recent decades to "abstract" something from the evidence (such as the "saturated fat" concept, which has no scientific definition the way many scientists use the phrase), create a model of a "disease," and then try to force new evidence into that model, the way an obstinate child might attempt to fit a large square peg into the small round hole. What results from this non-scientific process is something that looks to those who are not familiar with the scientific method as "science," but it may best be called a gross distortion of it.
