Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / December 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

greed vs "lifestyle food cult" - which makes more sense

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
TC - 07 Dec 2006 23:08 GMT
In one corner there is the NIHs, the FDA, Universities, researchers,
etc, all affiliated in some way with the food and/or the pharmaceutical
industry. The result is one majorly confused science. We don't know
what causes the major diseases that afflict us like cancers, diabetes
or even simple obesity, but the medical people still insist that their
treatments are the way to go. Billions are spent on "science" just
confuses the issues even more. No two scientists can agree on any point
unless they are paid by the same company. The motivation is simply
greed.

In the other corner is, among others the Weston Price so-called
"lifestyle food cult". Their motivation? It isn't greed because they
aren't selling anything except for a membership and a newsletter that,
I think, costs about $35 a year. Is their motivation arnarchy? I doubt
it, because everything they say seems to be peaceful and lawful. Their
message is always consistent.

So why would one support the greed machine over the Weston Price
people? And why would one trust in the greed machine unless there is a
vested interest involved?

Maybe these industry trolls can shed some light on why they are so
beholden to the greed machine.

TC
monty1945@lycos.com - 08 Dec 2006 00:31 GMT
The solution, TC, is to do some thinking and learning, because the
evidence is there, and mostly available on the internet now.  The
problem is that the textbooks are filled with nonsensical claims,
models, and assumptions.  If you have not been trained to examine
evidence and claims critically, as I was in graduate school, it will
indeed be difficult to separate the wheat from the chaffe, which is why
I put together my web stie.
TC - 08 Dec 2006 15:08 GMT
> The solution, TC, is to do some thinking and learning, because the
> evidence is there, and mostly available on the internet now.  The
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> indeed be difficult to separate the wheat from the chaffe, which is why
> I put together my web stie.

I learned to be examine things, such as evidence, critically from my
training in IT. There is no one who can claim to have the definitive
answer to any question. You have to examine the situation (data)
yourself and come to your own conclusions on what you see and what
makes the most sense as to what the right answer is. The moment that
you apply this sense of doubt and criticality to what is currently the
state of the science in nutrition, is the very moment that you realize
that there is something very wrong with this picture.

The very sad thing is that we have thousands of advanced degree
pinheads running around spouting their garbage by rote with no sense
whatsever of doubt. No ability whatsoever to look at the science
critically in any way. A science that does not question its own basis
is no longer a science, it becomes a religion. Which makes it quite
funny to think that the industry trolls in this ng that repeat their
nonsensical mantras ad-infinitum by rote actually have the temerity of
accusing the SAD diet sceptics of being part of a religious-like cult
ie. this so-called lifestyle food cult.

I watch the science channel quite often and I follow science news very
closely. When a new discovery is made, often we see interviews with
scientists who say that this discovery may challenge fundamental
aspects of theories and beliefs that have been held for ages. And when
they say this, they are often very excited at the prospect of seeing a
major shift in scientific belief in their field of study. They are open
to the possibility of old beliefs being wrong and new paradigm
re-writing their scientific textbooks. In fact they are excited by the
prospect.

Not so with nutrition. When low-carb was becoming very popular and many
many people started seeing that it not only works, but it works better
than the mainstreams low fat diets, the mainstream scientists were
under pressure to explain this away or at least respond to it. Studies
were coming out left, right and centre showing how low carb worked
better for weight loss and for general health. One of the responses I
saw was an appearance by certain scientists on a popular science show
on the science channel. Their response was a re-iteration of the
mainstreams concepts of higher calorie fats vs lower calorie carbs and
proteins, etc. etc. And their message was that these new studies are
wrong and we have always been right even though low fat fails most of
the time and low carb seems to work better. There answer was that they
were absolutely certain that what has been believed for generations is
completely unassailable and to question the science is unthinkable and
unscientific.

So, with virtually all other fields of science, change is part of the
process and the scientists find it exciting to examine and accept new
findings regardless of what it does to their beliefs. In nutrition, the
current state of utter confusion and massive obesity and other
malnourishment diseases is the state of the science, and it will remain
the state of the science for as long as the thought leaders in
nutrition have their way. All nutritional thought is frozen in time and
no-one ought to dare challenge it. Have faith in the advanced degree
pinheads that insist on perpetuating the current paradigm in the face
of global massive increases in nutritional diseases. Meanwhile if you
try to challenge the paradigm, you are labelled a "religious lifestyle
food cultist". Now that is IRONY.

TC
allr1@webtv.net - 09 Dec 2006 13:37 GMT
I learned to be examine things, such as evidence, critically from my
training in IT. There is no one who can claim to have the definitive
answer to any question. You have to examine the situation (data)
yourself and come to your own conclusions on what you see and what makes
the most sense as to what the right answer is. The moment that you apply
this sense of doubt and criticality to what is currently the state of
the science in nutrition, is the very moment that you realize that there
is something very wrong with this picture.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

There's a lot of dogma, that's for sure

=====================================

" The very sad thing is that we have thousands of advanced degree
pinheads running around spouting their garbage by rote with no sense
whatsoever of doubt. No ability whatsoever to look at the science
critically in any way. A science that does not question its own basis is
no longer a science, it becomes a religion. "

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It's hard to believe that all those advanced degree pinheads can't
figure out the cause
various diseases, like inflammatory related
ones.

I'm afraid the 'religion' of greed and industry
prefers it that way.

====================================

" I watch the science channel quite often and I follow science news very
closely. When a new discovery is made, often we see interviews with
scientists who say that this discovery may challenge fundamental aspects
of theories and beliefs that have been held for ages. And when they say
this, they are often very excited at the prospect of seeing a major
shift in scientific belief in their field of study. They are open to the
possibility of old beliefs being wrong and new paradigm re-writing their
scientific textbooks. In fact they are excited by the prospect.

Not so with nutrition. When low-carb was becoming very popular and many
many people started seeing that it not only works, but it works better
than the mainstreams low fat diets, the mainstream scientists were under
pressure to explain this away or at least respond to it. Studies were
coming out left, right and centre showing how low carb worked better for
weight loss and for general health. One of the responses I saw was an
appearance by certain scientists on a popular science show on the
science channel. Their response was a re-iteration of the mainstreams
concepts of higher calorie fats vs lower calorie carbs and proteins,
etc. etc. And their message was that these new studies are wrong and we
have always been right even though low fat fails most of the time and
low carb seems to work better. There answer was that they were
absolutely certain that what has been believed for generations is
completely unassailable and to question the science is unthinkable and
unscientific. "

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I watched some doctor on PBS (wearing his surgeons fatigues, no less)
saying to avoid saturated fats. (probably at the behest of the vegetable
oil industry)

Talk about a generalization that can't help but be wrong.

There are more than a few different types of saturated fats. To suggest
avoiding them all
is just plain asinine. (and doesn't take into account an individuals
present physiology)
Ron Peterson - 09 Dec 2006 17:03 GMT
> I watched some doctor on PBS (wearing his surgeons fatigues, no less)
> saying to avoid saturated fats. (probably at the behest of the vegetable
> oil industry)

You're bringing up the issue of critical thinking where the motives
need to be considered even if the results are true. Malaysia has been
sponsoring research to "prove" that palm oil is healthful compared to
coconut oil.

People like simple answers requiring minimal change to their lifestyle
and some pander to that.

> Talk about a generalization that can't help but be wrong.

It may be right, but its a simple answer and needs to be elaborated
with further studies.

> There are more than a few different types of saturated fats. To suggest
> avoiding them all
> is just plain asinine. (and doesn't take into account an individuals
> present physiology)

It's a simple answer, but has helped many people with atherosclerosis.

Signature

   Ron

allr1@webtv.net - 09 Dec 2006 13:21 GMT
monty1945 wrote:

" The solution, TC, is to do some thinking and learning, because the
evidence is there, and mostly available on the internet now. The problem
is that the textbooks are filled with nonsensical claims, models, and
assumptions. If you have not been trained to examine evidence and claims
critically, as I was in graduate school, it will indeed be difficult to
separate the wheat from the chaffe "

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The 'solution' is to get the profit motive out of medicine all together.

Sick people shouldn't be a commodity.

I would add, to your 'do some thinking and learning', (always good
advice) to trust your instincts and personal observations. (if you
possess a keen perception and a sufficiently high IQ)
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.