In reading some of the ludicrous responses to my posts, it may be worth spending some time on articulating exactly what passes for "science" these days. The scientific method is very straightforward, yet today most studies that the mainstream media reports or comments upon are based upon "markers," "associations," "links," "surrogate endpoints," etc. What's funny is that when the result is unexpected and contradicts their assumptions, the "researchers" are quick to point out that their results are only "preliminary" and that "links," for example, do not mean there is any significant relationship between what appears to be the cause and what appears to be the effect.

To be brief, if you want to essentially violate the Hippocratic Oath, and tell people to ingest substances that have known toxic effects at physiological concentrations (if one is eating a "typical Western diet"), then one better have truly scientific evidence that supports the claim (and no evidence that does not). For example, let's take the claim that omega 3 and 6 PUFAs (polyunsaturated fatty acids) are "essential." The biochemical evidence is clear: they will cause just about every "chronic disease" there is, if they reach a certain concentration, which according to some levels, is equal to that found in most Americans' bodies these days. Thus, those who argue that these toxic molecules are "essential" had better have on point experiments that demonstrate the humans will suffer severe symptoms if they avoid these molecules. No such evidence exists. Since life-long studies in humans would take too long, animal experiments could be done to show that not ingesting these toxic molecules would result in a much shorter life, but no such experi ments have been done. I have challenged those who make these claims to do such an experiment, the "loser" paying for all expenses, but there have been no takers to date, after many months of posting this offer here, time and again.

As I have pointed out over and over again here, omega 3s do inhibit dangerous metabolization of AA (an omega 6) upon cellular stress, but this means more toxic substances in your body instead of less, which you could achieve easily by avoiding them all in the first place. This is what I and several others (such biochemist Ray Peat) have done for years now, with only benefits (no signs of "deficiency"). For sociological, economic, political, or psychological reasons, many "experts" simply repeat what some teacher or textbook says, without actually examining the data. Many "studies" contain interpretations that contradict their own evidence, for example.

Thus, I have posted this to be a thread where those who wish to talk about the scientific method can ask or comment upon it. I am here to help, and my comments are totally free of charge. I want you to be able to think through the issues for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. But for those who wish to make a claim, you need to put forth a hypothesis, and many don't seem to know the first thing about doing this. You then propose experiments to demonstrate that your hypothesis is correct, as I do over and over again.

An interesting point is that while we undeniably live in an age of incredible technological advance, "science" in many ways has gone "backwards," with the reliance on "markers," "associations," etc. along with a lack of critical examination of existing assumptions that were never properly subjected to the scientific method.

"Dangerously enough, EM was progressively dismissed in retrovirus research after 1970. Molecular biologists started to rely exclusively on various "markers", and what was sedimenting in sucrose gradient at density 1.16 gm/ml was regarded as "pure virus". It is only in 1997, after fifteen years of intensive HIV research, that elementary EM controls were performed, with the disastrous results recently reviewed in Continuum. How many wasted efforts, how many billions of research dollars gone in smoke... Horrible."

Etienne de Harven, MD
https://www.virusmyth.net/aids/news/edhlettercont.htm

This is yet another example of how on point experiments have been mostly discarded in favor of "markers" based only on assumptions that do not even make sense. As I have pointed out, if you posit a "free radical" hypothesis of disease and aging because of the damage that they do to vital biomolecules, which has been demonstrated in many experiments, then look for molecules that indicate that there has been extreme free radical activity, you are "on point," though more evidence is necessary to make strong statements, though avoiding major sources of oxidation via the diet is clearly a good idea. If you assume that "high cholesterol" causes "heart disease" and then measure cholesterol levels, you are missing a vital step: how does the cholesterol cause damage? As fatty acid expert Mary Enig pointed out in this context, you can't blame fire fighters for causing a fire because they always appear after a fire is started.

As you very well know, your question is misleading.

Why do seek to mislead, Monty?

I trust using my brain. That is what I trust.

When somebody asks: "What kind of 'science' do you trust?" Their real question is: What kind of "people" do you trust?

The people of science are academics. Being that academia is the 2nd oldest scam on planet Earth, academics followed by lawyers, followed by anybody in the American Health Care System are the people I trust the least.

See, the real lowdown on the science/academia scam at:
https://tutorials.naturalhealthperspe...efinition.html

under "Basic Core Tenets Continued - #3 Free Will .... It should be strongly emphasized that the ideology of free will is NOT in opposition to science, but rather is opposed to the viewpoint expressed by a minority of scientists, who like to call themselves anti-quacks.[4]
....
The ideology of free will brings up bigger issues then merely being pro or anti science. Politically, in the United States, the pro-science people are the ultra-liberal academics. Whereas the conservative and religious groups and the Republican political party are viewed as being anti-science by the pro-science people. Or, in other words, the majority of the population and institutions, like the judicial system, in the United States can be accused of being anti-science."
--
john gohde
https://naturalhealthperspective.com/tutorials/

"It should be strongly emphasized that the ideology of free will is NOT in opposition to science, but rather is opposed to the viewpoint expressed by a minority of scientists, who like to call themselves anti-quacks."

You mean a majority of scientists are pro quack? Or is it better stated that scientists have neither pro or con support for quacks, a kind of apples and snails non overlapping sets.

It seems that we agree on the potential for "academia" to be misleading, so why are you interested in attacking me all the time? In actuality, you seem to be supporting their claims, e.g., that highly unsaturated oils are "essential." You need to sort out exactly where you stand, but the conspiracy theories are not for a science newsgroup. I wrote a book about sociological inquiry, and I would send you a free copy, if you were not such an obstinate individual intent on making yourself feel better about your shortcomings. I can't be sure, of course, but this is the kind of image you present in most, if not all of your posts. You can disagree with my assessment of the evidence, but if you don't address the evidence you really should be on another newsgroup, or in a therapist's office.

No, I mean the facts.

The 3 citations are posted on my web site, as well on Wikipedia.

The majority of medical schools and nursing schools teach CAM.

You are in the minority. I have located a directory of alternative medicine for Central Virginia. Quite a few M.D.'s and medical centers are listed. Could it mean that you are in the minority? Ha, ... Hah, Ha! I hope your delusions let you sleep at at night.

You have my condolences, Mr. Ignoramus. :)

It might be nice if someone were to define 'science' and the 'scientific method'

I apologize if I am asking too much.

__________________
Imagined knowledge kills learning . . .
The cure for boredom is curiosity...there is no cure for curiosity..

Donee,

You won't get a reply from one of them because those posts are copied here from a different forum. They are not members of this forum. As I said before, all the names you see here in black, are posts that have been copied here from google groups.

I have contacted Montygram, and he is wanting to have some serious scientific debates that don't get sidetracked, so he decided to start his own forum to do so.

I will contact him back about his new forum and ask him to write up an explanation of it to post here. I already signed up at it.

Rosie

A little more explanation about the forum:

This forum synchronized (double-way) with health related newsgroups for about one year.

Newsgroups are public discussions, they don't belong to any companies. Google, just like this forum, archives most newsgroups. Since Google is doing a much better job, we have stopped the synchronization since last Dec.

Thanks for using this forum! Please let me know if you have any suggestions.

Thanks Kevin. There was alot of confusion regarding that syncronization of the two.

We are just looking for a new "home", since our previous one got trashed by some unscrupulous characters, and there was no moderation of the board to stop it. We hope we can find some peace here, so we can carry on useful discussions/debates on all health issues.

Shapshftr

I was just wondering why suddenly came so many professionals, thanks for telling me why.

I hope you and your friends enjoy here, and do feel free to let me know if you need any changes about this forum, I will try my best to make you like the new home.

Well Thanks again Kevin,

And thanks for welcoming us to your place. It looks like we may have landed our house on a good spot. (Dorothy and Toto) LOL. I'm sure you will get some input from the good people who have landed here about any possible needs or suggestions. We will keep your offer in mind for future reference. So we may contact you by PM then, if we decide to ask for your help?

Shapshftr

Just PM me. I will get back to you within hours, probably in minutes.

Soooo shapshftr, Im supposing that a whipped cream thread or a matchmaking thread is probably a no no for awhile huh???? I guess Im gonna have to behave myself for awhile.. yep!!!!!