Dr. Henry Bauer, Why We Shouldn’t Trust Science |362|

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Sep 26, 2017.

  1. Laura O

    Laura O Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2016
    Messages:
    20
    Indeed. And where politics does have its place - in the public policy responses to the science - those who tend to be opposed to environmental regulations just become more entrenched in their antipathy towards such in response to the exaggerated claims, not to mention Climategate-type shenanigans.

    And then we have the Lysenkoist damage done to all the scientific fields related to climate studies.
     
    Trancestate likes this.
  2. Reece

    Reece Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Home Page:
    Good interview. I was already about half way through his new book, so it's nice to hear the interview while in the middle of reading.

    What I like best is that he brings up criticisms of science that I haven't really heard before.
     
    Baccarat likes this.
  3. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,344
    I think there are a lot of different scandals lurking. I had only heard of the fact that the evidence against saturated fat and salt is weak/non-existent after I had had trouble with statins. This lead me to places where a whole set of medical scandals seem to be brewing - discussed by doctors and medical researchers.

    1) People with high blood cholesterol are measured to have slightly higher life expectancies than those with less!

    2) Problems with the way thyroid deficiency is assessed and treated.

    3) Suggestions that non-drug treatments for cancer have been played down (massively) because the pharmaceutical industry don't like that idea.

    4) Suggestions that chemotherapy is very unlikely to effect a cure for many types of cancer, so in effect the patient is encouraged to swap what life they have left for a slightly longer period suffering very unpleasant side effects. Again, the pharmaceutical industry benefits hugely.

    These are not medical mistakes, they are instances where the facts seem well known among researchers, but are ignored.

    I think the only thing that keeps science clean, is when it is involved in making something that will visibly fail if the science is wrong.

    David
     
    Reece likes this.
  4. morvern_c

    morvern_c New

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    74
    This resonates very strongly. I have worked in university based medical research for almost 20 years. Research priorities are set entirely by funding bodies. There is constant pressure to publish, even if your data is crap/incomplete/doesn't explain anything.

    I have come to realise that rather than being a truth-generating machine, science as currently practiced is instead a consensus-generating machine. The uniformity of thought is almost cult-like.

    There are precious few cures to be found in my discipline, and mostly the work we do is entirely pointless.

    I am leaving in February to train as a Naturopath.
     
  5. Laura O

    Laura O Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2016
    Messages:
    20
    I would love to quote your post to the people who love to say "I'm with science!" :)
     
    Reece likes this.
  6. morvern_c

    morvern_c New

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    74
    When people say that, I automatically assume they are idiots who have no clue how science really works.
     
    Vortex and Laura O like this.
  7. Reece

    Reece Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Home Page:
    The medical stuff is seemingly endless. I sound like a broken record, but The Cancer Industry by Ralph Moss is a must read for everyone in a Western country . . . the stuff's unreal, honestly.

    Yes, and speaking of chemo, I've heard of several studies that said on average, a person with cancer is more apt to live longer, actually, if they do nothing than if they opt for mainstream (chemo & radiation) treatment. I'm sure that depends highly on which cancer and such, but it's still very, very explosive info . . . they say that most likely if you have a tumor, that it's been there for years and you/they just found it. Yet they will certainly have you believe that you must make a decision pronto! Or else your life's in immediate danger!

    And yes, as far as these not being medical mistakes, I think of a complaint about all that that I voice often to those that know me, which is about the absurdity of suggesting the complete opposite of what one needs for heart (or any other kind of) health: high grain intake coupled with low fat and low meat; plus not a lot of emphasis cutting processed garbage like sodas . . . all of which is very, very hard for me to take seriously . . . in the sense that no one knew better . . . for 40 plus years. I eat very high fat (pastured cow butter, coconut, nuts, avocados, fresh rendered lard from a local farmer who raises the animals eating what they were designed to eat by evolution, ghee), very low carb (and almost exclusively veggies and fruit for carbs), and the highest quality meat (100% pasture raised or wild caught fish (or the 25 pounds of shrimp fresh off the boat I bought last week)), and I'm the only one that I work around - including many much younger than me - that is not and has never been on any pharmaceutical. Ever. They're simply garbage, and harmful garbage at that. Everyone that first meets me and realizes all this at first completely assumes that I eat low fat. I tell them, no, I don't eat low fat. It almost invariably comes up again by the same person: they imply again that I wouldn't eat what they're eating because what they're eating is high in fat. I tell them, again, that I have no objection to eating high fat, I only object to eating man made, non-food (shit) fat. Denise Minger's "Death By Food Pyramid" tells the story of a woman who was with the FDA during the 60's when the precursor to the food pyramid was being formed and how she realized some of these errors . . . and how she was told or "encouraged" not to go that route.

    The ignorant country folk could've told one better right off the bat (concerning at least a good deal of this food info). Now, as it turns out, the ignorant country folk are doubtful of climate change, and I'm inclined to trust them more than the plethora of "experts" telling us otherwise.

    Good last point about a visible failure being the only thing that keeps science clean.

    Clarification: I'm not saying I've never taken a pharmaceutical. I have, mainly when I was younger and those were my parent's decision. I took, of all God-awful things: acutane. How embarrassing. I remember my mother saying that "they" used to say it was about the food you eat and grease and such, but that now (25 years ago), they're saying that's not the cause. Liars! And I've taken antibiotics on rare occasions, though always coupled with probiotics. But I've never been indefinitely on any pharmaceutical. And never will be.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2017
    AryaS, Baccarat, Trancestate and 3 others like this.
  8. morvern_c

    morvern_c New

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    74
    Yes. The bald truth is that science and medicine have been hijacked by corporate interests. There is no better endorsement a producer could wish for than to have someone in a white coat saying their product is good for you.

    This has resulted in the calamitous low fat dietary advice.

    I would advise everybody I know to stay far away from doctors unless it's a dire emergency. And eat what your ancestors ate.
     
    AryaS, hypermagda and Reece like this.
  9. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,344
    I think pharmaceuticals are something of a last resort - not something to be used routinely. Big pharama's desire to mess with basically well people, is certainly wrong!

    Of course science has to take the blame for this - they put their stamp of approval on the routine use of pharmaceuticals.

    David
     
    Reece likes this.
  10. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,344
    Wow that is a remarkable statement! Can you discuss any specifics - without risking revealing who you are if that could cause problems for you?

    David
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2017
  11. Judith

    Judith New

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    114
    OK. I've had personal experience with this, since my husband passed from cancer. A friend is a member of the Johnson and Johnson family. She queried one of the researchers she knew who worked in the field. She asked him what he would do if he got cancer. His response: I'd get a lot of pain meds. So even he knew that chemo treatment is useless. I now have a daughter-in-law who had a routine colonoscopy and where an "aggressive cancer" was discovered and has spread to her liver. She is now undergoing chemo and will have surgery at some future point. I told my step-son what I thought about the current field of cancer treatment and recommended he investigate some alternative treatments.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2017
  12. morvern_c

    morvern_c New

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    74
    There is a strange cognitive dissonance where we know many treatments aren't any better than placebo but still we behave as though they are effective. When people actually read the papers showing trials of antidepressants, for example, they tend to be truly surprised by how little effect they have. Medics do know this, but faced with a tsunami of human misery they don't know what else to do. So we keep pretending prozac works.
     
    Alex and Trancestate like this.
  13. morvern_c

    morvern_c New

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    74
    Ok so a more personal example. My department specialises in research into musculo-skeletal conditions - including gout.

    Six years ago my husband got gout. He went to the doctor and got prescribed the standard treatment. I did not want him taking those drugs. I cured it by other means (I did real research) - I changed his diet, gave him some supplements, herbs, homeopathy. Aside from one brief attack caused by too much red wine he has been completely well for five years.

    I would never tell my colleagues about this. It would mark me out as a heretic.
     
  14. Reece

    Reece Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Home Page:
    Ha! Hell yeah
     
  15. Ian

    Ian New

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2014
    Messages:
    15
    My favourite example of bad science at present is the whole saturated fats/cholesterol/salt is bad for you myth. There's a really good book on the topic called The Big Fat Mistake by Nina Teicholz. Interestingly, The Lancet in England has taken an editorial line against the theory, which developed in 50s in the States that these foodstuffs are bad for you, but was drowned out by what was coming from across the pond, and in particular because the "science" was backed up by the NIH, etc. This is another example of the problem when government takes a position on science, in that they can silence dissenting voices by restricting funding.
     
  16. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,344
    Yes indeed, and this has an awful twist to it. Anyone diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (or even the less extreme high glucose readings) is given diet advice to eat low fat and replace them with complex carbs. The carbs break down into sugar - go figure! A lot of people claim to have reversed their T2D by following the exact opposite diet - high fat, low carbs.

    David
     
    Ian likes this.
  17. Ian

    Ian New

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2014
    Messages:
    15
    Yes, I'm aware of that, and it's also quite likely that the broader dietary advice is responsible in part for the "obesity epidemic", as well as increased numbers of heart attacks (excess sugar) and strokes (insufficient fatty acids). Overall, it's quite clear just from trends in the general population that the dietary advice has not been effective even where it's been followed, but very few people question the data, and even when the evidence is pointed out and accepted there's an almost schizophrenic disregard for it. There was an article in The Daily Telegraph the other day pointing out recent meta-studies, to which some government health expert said, yes we accept that but we're not changing our advice. The bottom line is that nobody with the authority to do anything about it has the balls to go against decades of health advice. The current position is that the UK government advises against eating fatty food, red meat, etc., but at the same time has brought in a "sin tax" on sugary drinks, etc. Fibre is still OK, I assume.

    And don't get me started on margarine.
     
  18. I have seen videos by two different doctors who say they have cured diabetes. Dr. Neal Barnard advocates a low fat diet and Dr. Jay Wortman advocates a low carb diet. The low fat diet consisted of low glycemic index carbs - fruits, vegetables, and unmilled whole grains. So I think the common thread is to eat foods that do not cause a lot of insulin production ie foods that do not increase blood sugar levels.

    And this also has implications for weight loss - low carb or low fat diets can both be helpful if they keep insulin levels low because insulin signals the body to store fat. Some people might respond better to one or the other. (It is also relevant that dietary carbohydrates are not converted to stored body fat under normal circumstances, but carbs signal the body to store dietary fats which is why a low fat diet can help in weight management.)

    And it seems likely (I'm not a doctor, this isn't medical advice just speculation) that you don't have to go on a low fat or a low carb diet. You can eat a balanced diet as long as you keep insulin levels low by eating low glycemic index carbs. (I don't have diabetes, but I lost a lot of weight doing this.)

    Low Fat Cure:


    Low Carb Cure


    See the diet wars thread:
    http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/the-diet-wars-low-carb-or-low-fat.3952/

    http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/the-diet-wars-low-carb-or-low-fat.3952/#post-118192

    People in countries with the lowest obesity rates eat a low fat diet.

    (Advocates of a low carb diet say that insulin produced in response to elevated blood sugar tells the body how much fat to store. But complex carbohydrates from foods with a lot of fiber make you feel full so you don't overeat and are digested slowly so you won't produce a lot of insulin.)

    http://suneeldhand.com/2012/06/12/which-countries-have-the-lowest-obesity-rates/
    Take a look at the obesity rates in these countries (OECD latest data):

    South Korea- 3.8 %
    Japan- 3.9 %
    ...
    compare these percentages with the United States, which stands at a disappointing 33.8 percent


    http://www.canadianliving.com/healt...secrets-from-countries-with-low-obesity-rates

    The Asian diet

    Rice and rice products are a staple of this diet, and if you look at people living in rural areas of Asian countries, the diet consists of minimally processed grains, not instant white rice.

    The diet is also high in vegetables, Beck said. If you look at some of the vegetables they eat, they are full of compounds called cruciferous chemicals that studies have shown can actually help reduce the risk of cancer by affecting the enzymes in our liver that detoxify cancer-causing substances.

    "Soy is the main legume in their diet, soy is the protein, they use plant-based beverages every day; (they drink) green tea, saki, even beer," she noted. "It's really a low-fat diet that's almost vegetarian. Animal protein foods are used very minimally."
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2017
    Laird likes this.
  19. Reece

    Reece Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Home Page:
    Jim, with Weston Price's research, we can look at not simply one - the Asian - diet, but many diets from many traditional peoples who lived very long lives on the whole, almost completely free of chronic disease . . . and had arches large enough for their teeth to actually fit in their skull, unlike almost all of ours today. A couple conclusions seem to be these: they ate food that was extremely nutrient dense (many nutrients for little calories), and they ate diets high in fat soluble vitamins.

    Also, the soy thing is very deceptive for some: soy was (and still is) considered poison by Asians, unless it's prepared traditionally . . . fermented. In other words, it's the complete opposite of the fake meat products that sell like hot cakes, but that are horrible for us.
     
    Jim_Smith likes this.

Share This Page