David Bailey
Member
Science can't really be about consensus. If people need to rely on consensus, it would be more honest to say that there isn't really any clear evidence one way or the other, or that there is contradictory evidence - which itself implies that something isn't understood.
Consensus seems to have lead to some terrible mistakes. Think for a moment about the consensus that has existed for decades that high blood cholesterol is bad for you, and then read this:
http://vernerwheelock.com/179-cholesterol-and-all-cause-mortality/
Empirical study after study has shown that high cholesterol is beneficial. Is it any use talking about the consensus view of cholesterol? Note that some of those studies also looked at LDL cholesterol, and then then the result is the same!
This illustrates something that is common to a lot of really bad science - it couldn't exist if everyone was aware of all the currently available evidence. I mean, why would you target a molecule that is clearly required by the body, and seems from repeated studies to be correlated with long life? At the very least you would expect those wanting to reduce cholesterol levels to begin by describing those studies and then explain why they were somehow misleading!
Likewise, nobody in their right minds would set out to measure supposed changes in global temperature of tenths or hundredths of a degree using the data from weather stations:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/22/the-metrology-of-thermometers/
Or to take the possible problems with vaccines, surely the place to start is with the CDC Insider who came out as a whistle-blower!
David
Consensus seems to have lead to some terrible mistakes. Think for a moment about the consensus that has existed for decades that high blood cholesterol is bad for you, and then read this:
http://vernerwheelock.com/179-cholesterol-and-all-cause-mortality/
Empirical study after study has shown that high cholesterol is beneficial. Is it any use talking about the consensus view of cholesterol? Note that some of those studies also looked at LDL cholesterol, and then then the result is the same!
This illustrates something that is common to a lot of really bad science - it couldn't exist if everyone was aware of all the currently available evidence. I mean, why would you target a molecule that is clearly required by the body, and seems from repeated studies to be correlated with long life? At the very least you would expect those wanting to reduce cholesterol levels to begin by describing those studies and then explain why they were somehow misleading!
Likewise, nobody in their right minds would set out to measure supposed changes in global temperature of tenths or hundredths of a degree using the data from weather stations:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/22/the-metrology-of-thermometers/
Or to take the possible problems with vaccines, surely the place to start is with the CDC Insider who came out as a whistle-blower!
David
Last edited: