The danger of science denial

I thought blog title said "the danger of science". was ready to ultra rage.

hmm...
+ Show Spoiler +

it's frightening, the amount of people in the world who don't use logic. We should be constantly questioning everything and using logic to get conclusions. People would rather believe something cause someone told them than because it's logical :/
Which links us to the 2nd video, where people tortue others because they were told by authority. Apparently in this world authority beats logic+morality combined
Well, maybe that's actually a good thing. a good amount of the population needs to obey authority without question so we can enslave ourselves and get shit done. And the other half need to be the advisers. heh.

Zimbardo owns

On June 07 2011 08:23 Stroggoz wrote: it's frightening, the amount of people in the world who don't use logic. We should be constantly questioning everything and using logic to get conclusions. People would rather believe something cause someone told them than because it's logical :/ Which links us to the 2nd video, where people tortue others because they were told by authority. Apparently in this world authority beats logic+morality combined Well, maybe that's actually a good thing. a good amount of the population needs to obey authority without question so we can enslave ourselves and get shit done. And the other half need to be the advisers. heh.

-.- one of the main points of the videos was that it is easy to categorize the people who do evil things as "others" and "not me", and not realize how powerful situational causes are and how easy it is for us to rationalize any action we take.

In video 1 he's supporting GM crops but failed to mention there are hundreds of studies that finally show the ill effects they have with regard with your health. Science itself, his friend, is demonstrating this. There needs to be a middle ground to save peoples lives though, i agree with that. I agree with every other statement he's made other than that though, good watch.

On June 07 2011 12:10 Newblish wrote: In video 1 he's supporting GM crops but failed to mention there are hundreds of studies that finally show the ill effects they have with regard with your health. Science itself, his friend, is demonstrating this.

No it's not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_food_controversy#Health_risks_and_benefits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food#Health_risks

I'm not reading those entire entries. I took environmental studies in University and have been on those pages hundreds of times. I know what they say. Problem is that I dont really know what to believe because I have seen real documented proof in my classroom(study after study) of GM foods causing cancer in mice, allergies in humans, amongst other things. The evidence isnt substantial at all, i never claimed it was. There is evidence out there though, especially when studying mice/other animals. Go read up on how allergies work - Basically our bodies are used to things in a certain form(for this discussion it's food and food in its natural form), when it deviates it causes an allergy or a higher risk of an allergy. I should go look up my class notes from years back because it was easily convincing that GM crops are not the way to go for your long-term health.

Anyway, I chose to eat organic fruits/vegetables because the evidence just isnt substantial enough to say GM crops are safe. If they are, so be it but in the meantime I spend an extra bit of money on organic food just to make sure.

Here are two really interesting articles on the subject written by Mercola(some might know him, almost everyone believes hes one of the most trustworthy people in the health field) -

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/art...10/04/03/jeffrey-smith-interview.aspx

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/art...avoid-genetically-modified-foods.aspx

There's a ton of real evidence out there against it(based on real studies), so the wiki entry is wrong when it says there are no documented studies showing any correlation between GM foods/ill health effects. Either way, I dont generally like debating on LP, i try to stay away from it. So ill just leave it at that - this is the one and only response, just wanted to check out the videos tbh -.-

Joseph Mercola is a nut. For the sake of other ppl reading I'm just going to copy paste his info from wiki

+ Show Spoiler +

Food consumption

Mercola advocates a diet consisting mostly of unprocessed foods. He sees value in paleolithic diets and advocates metabolic typing.[12] He encourages using water filters, including the process of reverse osmosis, to purify drinking water, opposes drinking water with chlorine, and is strongly opposed to water fluoridation.

Mercola also recommends avoiding pasteurized milk, homogenized milk, most fish (due to mercury content), trans fats, corn and canola oil, unfermented soy products, artificial sweeteners, sugar, starches, and for those with elevated insulin levels (such as anyone who is overweight, diabetic, or has high blood pressure or high cholesterol) he also advises avoiding all grain products ("even whole unprocessed grains, and alternative grains like quinoa, amaranth, millet and teff", fruit juices (including fresh-squeezed fruit juices), and canned, packaged or artificial foods. This is very similar to what is often called a Paleolithic diet.

Mercola's dietary recommendations often put him at odds with mainstream dietary advice. Recent epidemiological studies suggest that grains may have a protective effect against type 1 diabetes,[13] and that a whole-grain diet strongly protects adults against type 2 diabetes.[14]

Mercola encourages the ingestion of unprocessed saturated fats, including unrefined coconut oil.[15] The American Heart Association disagrees, stating that saturated fats contribute to heart disease.[16] Recent academic reviews agree that replacing saturated fats with polyunsaturated fats can help prevent heart disease, although the effects of the individual types of unsaturated fatty acids is a complex and largely unresolved question.[17][18]
[edit] Food preparation

Mercola's website has called microwave ovens dangerous, claiming that microwaving food alters its chemistry.[19][20] Mercola offers non-microwave, convection ovens for sale in his store.[21] In contrast, academic reviews have concluded that "no significant nutritional differences exist between foods prepared by conventional and microwave methods."22] Other studies have suggested that food cooked in microwave ovens can be more nutritious than conventionally-cooked food.[23][24] The Harvard Medical School Family Health Guide states that "as a general proposition, cooking with a microwave probably does a better job of preserving the nutrient content of foods because the cooking times are shorter."25]

Mercola is also against homogenization,[26] claiming that it leads to xanthine oxidase absorption and oxidative stress.[27] This idea has been described as "tenuous and implausible" in the Journal of the American Medical Association.[28] A review published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition concluded that "Experimental evidence has failed to substantiate, and in many cases has refuted, the xanthine oxidase/plasmalogen depletion hypothesis".[29]
[edit] Drugs and supplements

Mercola opposes the use of most prescription drugs and immunizations, favoring what he calls natural food choices, lifestyle modifications and energy psychology tools to address emotional challenges.[30] He promotes and sells numerous dietary supplements, including krill oil, vitamin K, probiotics, and anti-oxidant supplements.

Mercola is especially critical of new drugs, as well as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.[31] He dismisses many conventional health concerns and medications as useless at best and potentially toxic or fatal at worst. He prescribes exercise, good diet, good sleep, specially filtered water, chlorella, omega-3 fats, and energy psychology methods like Emotional Freedom Technique as an overall cure for most ills.

"I am quite confident that if gravity had to be approved by the FDA it would clearly meet strong resistance from the multi-national drug corporations."citation needed] - Joseph Mercola

[edit] HIV and AIDS

Mercola has been outspoken in his views that HIV is not the cause of AIDS,[32] a view which is not held by mainstream medical science. He also claims on his website to have been the editor of a publication called HIV Monograph, published by Abbott Laboratories,[33] however, he is not listed on the actual publication.[34]
[edit] Sunscreen

Mercola has also claimed that the use of sunscreen increases, not decreases, the likelihood of contracting skin cancer with high UV exposure.[35] This view is not held by mainstream medical science; in 2011, the National Toxicology Program stated that "Protection against photodamage by use of broad-spectrum sunscreens is well-documented as an effective means of reducing total lifetime UV dose and, thereby, preventing or ameliorating the effects of UV radiation on both the appearance and biomechanical properties of the skin".[36]
[edit] Vaccinations

Mercola has been highly critical of vaccines and vaccination policy, claiming that too many vaccines are used too soon during infancy.[37] He hosts vaccine critics on his website, advocates preventive measures rather than vaccination in many cases, and strongly criticizes influenza vaccines.

Mercola argues that thimerosal, previously widely used as a vaccine preservative, is harmful.[38] Thimerosal is no longer present in most vaccines given to young children in the USA, though it is still present in some vaccines approved for adults.[39] Extensive evidence has accumulated since 1999 showing that this preservative is safe,[38] with the World Health Organization stating in 2006 that "there is no evidence of toxicity in infants, children or adults exposed to thiomersal in vaccines".[40]

In his book The Great Bird Flu Hoax,[41] Mercola appears to take a stronger anti-pharmaceutical industry stance by accusing them of a fear-mongering marketing campaign against the public. In supporting this stance, Mercola often has wholly critical views of those working in governmental health care, as well as towards international health organizations. He argues at length that concern over swine flu and the resulting immunizations were actually false alarms put forth to terrify the public.[42] The World Health Organization reports that by 1 August 2010 about 18,500 deaths have been caused by the H1N1 pandemic influenza.[43]
[edit] Natural parenting

In October 2010, Mercola announced plans to produce a breastmilk alternative for mothers who may experience difficulty in breastfeeding their infants. Many of his fans were upset by the announcements and questioned his ethics, marketing an artificial formula product when donor milk banks provide a nutritionally adequate food for human infants. However, Mercola had explained in the announcement (when it was originally posted on his website) that the intent is to provide an alternative nutritional source for infants that they should normally get from breastmilk, even if their mothers aren't able to nurse. This controversy also ignited a discussion over his stance on infant circumcision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola

Further medical articles about how crazy mercola is http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/i...nore-joseph-mercola-and-natural-news/

He is not one of the most trustworthy people in health, he is a whack job. He is the embodiment of everything Spector is saying is wrong with people.

On June 07 2011 12:57 Newblish wrote: I'm not reading those entire entries. I took environmental studies in University and have been on those pages hundreds of times. I know what they say. Problem is that I dont really know what to believe because I have seen real documented proof in my classroom(study after study) of GM foods causing cancer in mice, allergies in humans, amongst other things. The evidence isnt substantial at all, i never claimed it was. There is evidence out there though, especially when studying mice/other animals. Go read up on how allergies work - Basically our bodies are used to things in a certain form(for this discussion it's food and food in its natural form), when it deviates it causes an allergy or a higher risk of an allergy. I should go look up my class notes from years back because it was easily convincing that GM crops are not the way to go for your long-term health. Anyway, I chose to eat organic fruits/vegetables because the evidence just isnt substantial enough to say GM crops are safe. If they are, so be it but in the meantime I spend an extra bit of money on organic food just to make sure. Here are two really interesting articles on the subject written by Mercola(some might know him, almost everyone believes hes one of the most trustworthy people in the health field) - http://articles.mercola.com/sites/art...10/04/03/jeffrey-smith-interview.aspx http://articles.mercola.com/sites/art...avoid-genetically-modified-foods.aspx There's a ton of real evidence out there against it(based on real studies), so the wiki entry is wrong when it says there are no documented studies showing any correlation between GM foods/ill health effects. Either way, I dont generally like debating on LP, i try to stay away from it. So ill just leave it at that - this is the one and only response, just wanted to check out the videos tbh -.-

Would you rather Africa, when we tried to give them a strain of grain that would have made it easy to grow grain in extremely harsh conditions and produce a large amount of food, have taken the grain and risk potential health problems or deny it and allow hundreds of thousands of people to starve because of it.

The side effects are most likely there, as DNA is being changed and new factors have to be considered. However, when you get some of these morons claiming "frankenfood" is going to poison the world and all science in the field must be stopped, that is when the discussion has to stop. Picket and protest all you want claiming we need more testing on the problems that have arisen, but don't EVER try to stop science that could save millions in the world from starvation.

Ok, i really dont care about debating/responding, i couldnt care less what anyone thinks about this. It's everyones job to figure out whats correct and whats not based on what they see in front of them.

All ill quickly say is - You showed me a site that bitches about nothing but vaccines/medicine and a wikipedia article that tells people about him/his work/some of his claims/controversies. Do you ACTUALLY believe Mercola is a scammer despite the fact that millions of people subscribe to him, agree with his work and promote his ideas? I forgot where i read the statistic but apparently his site is one of the fastest growing health sites and people are giving him very good reviews. People must be incredibly stupid(and alot of them at that) to blindly follow him if he is in fact a scammer. It's funny how little of his work can actually be refuted because every single day he has a new article about something which is ALWAYS based on scientific analysis/reason. So if people want to poke at him and claim hes mistaken about a thing or two i doubt he gives a shit.

Anyway, I'm 100% not going to respond back, Im sorry. I just dont care enough to debate anymore. Just wanted to watch the videos and make a quick comment :o

On June 07 2011 13:51 Carthac wrote: Show nested quote + On June 07 2011 12:57 Newblish wrote: I'm not reading those entire entries. I took environmental studies in University and have been on those pages hundreds of times. I know what they say. Problem is that I dont really know what to believe because I have seen real documented proof in my classroom(study after study) of GM foods causing cancer in mice, allergies in humans, amongst other things. The evidence isnt substantial at all, i never claimed it was. There is evidence out there though, especially when studying mice/other animals. Go read up on how allergies work - Basically our bodies are used to things in a certain form(for this discussion it's food and food in its natural form), when it deviates it causes an allergy or a higher risk of an allergy. I should go look up my class notes from years back because it was easily convincing that GM crops are not the way to go for your long-term health. Anyway, I chose to eat organic fruits/vegetables because the evidence just isnt substantial enough to say GM crops are safe. If they are, so be it but in the meantime I spend an extra bit of money on organic food just to make sure. Here are two really interesting articles on the subject written by Mercola(some might know him, almost everyone believes hes one of the most trustworthy people in the health field) - http://articles.mercola.com/sites/art...10/04/03/jeffrey-smith-interview.aspx http://articles.mercola.com/sites/art...avoid-genetically-modified-foods.aspx There's a ton of real evidence out there against it(based on real studies), so the wiki entry is wrong when it says there are no documented studies showing any correlation between GM foods/ill health effects. Either way, I dont generally like debating on LP, i try to stay away from it. So ill just leave it at that - this is the one and only response, just wanted to check out the videos tbh -.- Would you rather Africa, when we tried to give them a strain of grain that would have made it easy to grow grain in extremely harsh conditions and produce a large amount of food, have taken the grain and risk potential health problems or deny it and allow hundreds of thousands of people to starve because of it. The side effects are most likely there, as DNA is being changed and new factors have to be considered. However, when you get some of these morons claiming "frankenfood" is going to poison the world and all science in the field must be stopped, that is when the discussion has to stop. Picket and protest all you want claiming we need more testing on the problems that have arisen, but don't EVER try to stop science that could save millions in the world from starvation.

Pretty sure i said that there needs to be a middle ground between how we use GM crops related to health and saving lives in my first paragraph, let me check - : "There needs to be a middle ground to save peoples lives though, i agree with that. I agree with every other statement he's made other than that though, good watch."

Let me check..... yup i said it.. Thanks for reading my entire argument. You act like im 100% against them or something - I'm not. All I did was say there is evidence showing their potential health hazards.

pfft. i think most people can be very capable of doing horrendous things. It's just the luck of the dice roll that we weren't exposed to the shit nessacary to breed and teach someone to do evil things.

shit if someone just slaughtered/tortured etc your family/loved ones i'm pretty sure most of us will go at huge lengths for vengeance. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be capable of that kind of forgiveness and benevolence and just go

On June 07 2011 14:09 Newblish wrote: Do you ACTUALLY believe Mercola is a scammer despite the fact that millions of people subscribe to him, agree with his work and promote his ideas? I forgot where i read the statistic but apparently his site is one of the fastest growing health sites and people are giving him very good reviews. People must be incredibly stupid(and alot of them at that) to blindly follow him if he is in fact a scammer.

I don't care to enter this debate on GMOs but millions of people blindly following someone because of incredible stupidity is what occured and still occurs with respect to vaccines.

Having watched 10mins of the first video, I realised the guy is on a Pharma-promoting tour. So he promotes GMO and vaccines, great. I think most Europeans here know very well how dangerous GMO is and how distasteful GMO foods are. What most people don't realise ,however, is that vaccines are way more dangerous and to prove my point I will leave the argumentation to Kent Hovind. Please just watch it before you come after me, okay? And to cut things short for palak, I will post his wiki info - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind - yes, another crazy whackjob. I don't agree with him on many topics but this short lecture is pretty spot on with LOTS of referrence to studies and statistics tables leading to internet links so that you can check them out. So just examine the facts he states. I would be glad if we skip the discredition part for once and just look at the evidence, shall we?

Having watched 10mins of the first video, I realised the guy is on a Pharma-promoting tour. So he promotes GMO and vaccines, great. I think most Europeans here know very well how dangerous GMO is and how distasteful GMO foods are. What most people don't realise ,however, is that vaccines are way more dangerous and to prove my point I will leave the argumentation to Kent Hovind. Please just watch it before you come after me, okay? And to cut things short for palak, I will post his wiki info - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind - yes, another crazy whackjob. I don't agree with him on many topics but this short lecture is pretty spot on with LOTS of referrence to studies and statistics tables leading to internet links so that you can check them out. So just examine the facts he states. I would be glad if we skip the discredition part for once and just look at the evidence, shall we?

I don't trust Mercola. If you follow his site/articles he's constantly trying to sell supplements and products. If your eating "correctly" you shouldn't really need supplements -- at least thats my view. I don't really buy into this idea he has of optimising his health even further by supplementing X. I don't believe he's a whackjob though and i don't believe any diet advice is set in stone, including paleo. Mercola's wiki article does deliver both brief sides of the arguement but it does make him look unfairly bad imo especially to the average reader. It wouldn't surprise me if Mercola (or anyone else) was wrong on a bunch of things because it's hard to be right always in the health/nutrition field. The food pyramid/plate, mercola's advice, or any of the other diets out there may be right for some people and wrong for others. It's an extremely complicated subject (the body) but i agree with Mercola in getting things as unprocessed and as close to natural as you can.

Some things though:

Quoting Mercola: Homogenization: This is the process whereby the fat particles of cream are strained through tiny pores under great pressure. The resulting fat particles are so small that they stay in suspension rather than rise to the top of the milk. This makes the fat and cholesterol more susceptible to rancidity and oxidation, and some research indicates that homogenized fats may contribute to heart disease.58

source

As i've always understood it the only reason milk is homogenised is to avoid cream lines appearing on store milk. I don't care about cream lines and personally believe this is stupid to put milk through this process. If you don't like milk, don't drink it and don't try to make it into something it's not. I've had plenty of the organic/grass fed raw variety and it tastes marvelous. If theres a cream line that bothers you, shake it up for like 5 seconds and you're good. Lots of people drink unpasteurised milk and have no issues. It is true though that there is always a small risk of becoming sick if your milk is bad but put it in perspective -- that is true for nearly all food we buy including pasteurised milk which has no bacteria left in it to ward off/neutralise contaminants.

I don't believe saturated fat is something you should necessarily be avoiding. I think if that is all you eat then maybe thats where it might be a problem but for example, people cut the fat off grass fed steak because they're going to get heart disease then go about eating commercial butter and don't have any idea how retarded it is.

I don't trust GM foods. I don't really have much else to say about it.

On June 07 2011 14:39 D_smart_S wrote: Having watched 10mins of the first video, I realised the guy is on a Pharma-promoting tour. So he promotes GMO and vaccines, great. I think most Europeans here know very well how dangerous GMO is and how distasteful GMO foods are. What most people don't realise ,however, is that vaccines are way more dangerous and to prove my point I will leave the argumentation to Kent Hovind. Please just watch it before you come after me, okay? And to cut things short for palak, I will post his wiki info - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind - yes, another crazy whackjob. I don't agree with him on many topics but this short lecture is pretty spot on with LOTS of referrence to studies and statistics tables leading to internet links so that you can check them out. So just examine the facts he states. I would be glad if we skip the discredition part for once and just look at the evidence, shall we?

I am not watching the video and not going to shit filled internet links.

Vaccine are good, you are alive because of them, Stop spewing none sense.

Science has as much of a following/cult as any other thing. Lots of branches of brilliance but lots of crazy fucking retards. The biggest difference is long term science should always deviate away from the fucked retarded people/theories/attempts, instead converging to long term, positive affects. Science teaches you all the outliers as being a part of the process so I don't look at all the whacky people in disgust however it's sucks watching so many people waste their thoughts/time/theory and try to push it onto other people.

ill respond in more detail later buy newb think about this. If you agree with the speech spector gave except for gmos then u disagree with mercola on almost everything. You disagree with mercola about the cause of aids, the merits of sunscreen, the safety of microwave, and most importantly about the use of vaccinees especially with regard to mmr. Who is one of the leaders of the anti-vaccinee movement? Mercola ( http://www.skepdic.com/mercola.html ). If you disagree majorly with him on all other views besides gmos this man is clearly someone who you would not think should he considered good at his profession as u agree with only 1 out of his 6 premises listed. Further u should see that it is easily possibld for people to flock to someone who is completely wrong on everything ( according to scientific consensus ). Yet you are leaping to defend him as a man who is of high scientific intelligence. Just because someones website is growing quickly doesnt make it right. The ID movement was growing for many yrs before it finally went away ( as much as it ever will) to say that movement had any merit due to its growth is a blatent falsehood. The anti vaccinee movement is the same, just because it is growing rapidly among lay ppl ( and natural drs reports/"studies" does not give it a shred of credibility. The same logic follows for a movement against gmos.

On June 07 2011 14:58 Highcard wrote: I am not watching the video and not going to shit filled internet links. Vaccine are good, you are alive because of them, Stop spewing none sense.

DON'T WATCH IT, it will kill your brain cells like marijuana (source: scientific consensus) :D:D:D

Do you ACTUALLY believe Mercola is a scammer despite the fact that millions of people subscribe to him, agree with his work and promote his ideas? I forgot where i read the statistic but apparently his site is one of the fastest growing health sites and people are giving him very good reviews. People must be incredibly stupid(and alot of them at that) to blindly follow him if he is in fact a scammer. It's funny how little of his work can actually be refuted because every single day he has a new article about something which is ALWAYS based on scientific analysis/reason. So if people want to poke at him and claim hes mistaken about a thing or two i doubt he gives a shit.

2 things.
1. A person can genuinely believe they are doing right and be doing extreme evil. The pope thinks he is doing gods work by telling Africans by the tens of millions not to use condoms claiming that science has shown that condoms don't work on AIDS.
2. People blindly followed Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. People can be extremely gullible and follow someone telling them what they want to hear (in this case "you don't need medicine, i have the secret to real health')

I don't believe he's a whackjob though and i don't believe any diet advice is set in stone, including paleo.... It's an extremely complicated subject (the body) but i agree with Mercola in getting things as unprocessed and as close to natural as you can...I don't trust GM foods. I don't really have much else to say about it.

People often do not trust what they don't understand or have not studied. I mean if someone gave you lets say cough syrup to help with a cough and you didn't know what the liquid was there would be many people who would distrust the medicine on the basis of them putting things that they have not looked at into their body.
If someone writes an article citing "hiv does not cause aids" I have no problem calling them a whack job and taking this as evidence that any further ideas they have on biology/medicine are likely to be WAY off base. This is why I find it relevant to the discussion of what his beliefs are for things like natural foods. Further the whole "unprocessed" debate has some merits, processed sugars make food unhealthy etc, but people like Mercola take the claims over the top to the point of being harmful when they deny the progress of genetic manipulation of food which adds in vitamins and allows for better growth. I agree the processing of white bread makes it less healthy then wheat is an example of something that is bad processing.
A few sites/statements about this.
A long overview of all the benefits and concerns about GMOs written in 2000, it's a good summation of things to that point. http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php

And from the wiki

A 2008 review published by the Royal Society of Medicine noted that GM foods have been eaten by millions of people worldwide for over 15 years, with no reports of ill effects.[103] Similarly a 2004 report from the US National Academies of Sciences stated: "To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population."7] The European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010 report on GMOs noted that "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."104]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food#Health_risks
A link to the actual [104] paper http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosocie..._decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf

This is not some instance of it being a few articles vs a few articles in a debate. This a massive amount of independent analysis vs a few people who have crazy views that are not substantiated by anyone outside of their own small group.


Lets look at the paper you sourced for errors. First its' not written by Mercola, it's written by Mary Enig in a book from her, the sources are unaviaible for me to look at (when i click the reference link it takes me to http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny which is a blank screen on my comp. The main point of the specific part (part 2) of the article is basically claiming, cholesterol and saturated fats are good and do no cause disease.

The cause of heart disease is not animal fats and cholesterol but rather a number of factors inherent in modern diets, including excess consumption of vegetables oils and hydrogenated fats; excess consumption of refined carbohydrates in the form of sugar and white flour; mineral deficiencies, particularly low levels of protective magnesium and iodine; deficiencies of vitamins, particularly of vitamin C, needed for the integrity of the blood vessel walls, and of antioxidants like selenium and vitamin E, which protect us from free radicals; and, finally, the disappearance of antimicrobial fats from the food supply, namely, animal fats and tropical oils.

This flies in the face of the consensus on the lipid hypothesis which has been accepted completely for a long time.

Scientific consensus Since the middle of the 20th century, the lipid hypothesis proposing that saturated fats and cholesterol in the blood are a major factor in cardiovascular disease has been the focus of research seeking to prove or disprove its validity. The interpretation of this research has resulted in the general acceptance of the lipid hypothesis as scientific fact by the end of the century.[2] While it has attracted controversy, the scientific consensus was early on in its favor. A survey conducted in 1978 found that a large majority of researchers and practitioners were supportive of the validity of the lipid hypothesis.[9] In this survey, 211 prominent researchers in the field were questioned about the association of the plasma cholesterol biomarker and the link of disease to diet. 90% responded with the following answers: Question Yes No Uncertain Do you think there is a connection between plasma cholesterol level and the development of coronary heart disease? 189 2 2 Do you think that our knowledge about diet and coronary heart disease is sufficient to recommend a moderate change in the diet for the population of an affluent society? 176 16 1 The National Institute of Health held a consensus development conference reviewing the scientific evidence in 1984, during which a panel of 14 experts unanimously voted "yes" on the questions of whether blood cholesterol was causal and whether reducing it would help to prevent heart disease.[10] The panel concluded: It has been established beyond a reasonable doubt that lowering definitely elevated blood cholesterol levels (specifically, blood levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol) will reduce the risk of heart attacks caused by coronary heart disease... —[11] As of the end of the 1980s, the evidence accumulated through studies resulted in general acceptance of the lipid hypothesis and the rejection of the "cholesterol controversy",[12][13] and by 2002, the lipid hypothesis was accepted by the scientific community as proven,[14] or, as one article stated, "universally recognized as a law."15] Critics point out that the standard for proof in the field is placebo controlled, double blind tests and not argumentum ad populum.[16] A minority of the medical community still argue that the lipid hypothesis has not yet been scientifically validated as having identified a cause of heart disease.[17][18][19] Nowadays, the term "lipid hypothesis" is commonly used by the opponents of the scientific consensus concerning the role of cholesterol in atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease, such as members of The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics founded in 2003 by critic Uffe Ravnskov. [edit] Controversy [edit] Cholesterol controversy of atherogenesis During the 1970s and 1980s, some researchers and practitioners considered the lipid hypothesis as unverified due to the lack of proof at that time that lowering blood cholesterol levels resulted in decreased risk for atherosclerosis.[20] Some skeptics were questioning its validity by arguing that the studies supporting it were flawed.[21][22] This discussion is also referred to as the "cholesterol controversy." Predictions were made at the time that further research during the 1980s and 1990s would help settle this controversy.[23] However, even after the Coronary Primary Prevention Trial[24] and the NIH Consensus Conference in the mid 80s, criticism persisted in a minority of the scientific community questioning the statistical and mechanistic significance of the associations measured in the trials and the conclusions of the panel.[25] In the following years, studies with lipid- and cholesterol-lowering drugs such as statins provided further associative evidence in support of the lipid hypothesis.[26][27][28][29] This was questioned on the basis that the positive effect of statins may be due to effects other than cholesterol-lowering - a meta-analysis of cholesterol-lowering trials demonstrated that coronary mortality was not lowered by cholesterol lowering, but total mortality was increased.[30] One proposed mechanism by which statins reduce coronary heart disease is by working as vitamin D analogues.[31] Further studies were designed in the hope of settling the controversy.[32][33][34] The continuing consensus regards the lipid hypothesis as proven; but disagreement still persists among groups who argue that it is based on associations and misrepresented or over-interpreted data, and has not been shown as a scientifically validated causal mechanism.[17][35][36]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_hypothesis#Controversy

Basically she and this entire article is part of a very small part of the scientific community that refuses to give up a belief they held despite being proven wrong 30 years ago.


As for the actual quote you listed which again is Enig not mercola

This makes the fat and cholesterol more susceptible to rancidity and oxidation, and some research indicates that homogenized fats may contribute to heart disease.58

The some research is probably referring to the Oster hypothesis which has been proven to be false, what's funny is that Enig herself says this idea has been shown to be bullshit http://www.realmilk.com/homogenization.html

Further links talking about homogenized milk being safe
http://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302%2883%2981956-0/abstract
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/...stract?fromPage=online&aid=927640 (says more studies need to be done to guaruntee it is safe by medical standards, but currently evidence points to it being safe)
http://www.ajcn.org/content/38/2/327.short ( says that there is no link between homogenized milk and an increase in fat in the blood )
http://journals.lww.com/co-lipidology...cts_and_cardiovascular_disease.2.aspx ( there is no evidence that milk causes coronary disease)

Lots of people drink unpasteurised milk and have no issues. It is true though that there is always a small risk of becoming sick if your milk is bad but put it in perspective -- that is true for nearly all food we buy including pasteurised milk which has no bacteria left in it to ward off/neutralise contaminants.

Sure people can drink unpasteurized milk and be fine, the same way they could eat raw meat and drink water out of a river and possibly be just fine. It doesn't mean that it's a good idea when we have made advancements to make a person not need to take this danger anymore. Yes pasteurization kills off all the bacteria (good and bad) in milk, however the risk of consuming the bad bacteria that maybe present in milk FAR outweighs the small loss caused from not drinking the good bacteria.


As for the D_smart Hovind crap. The idea that vaccines are being used to spread disease to lower the human population is a load of bullshit. Vaccines are extremely beneficial big diseases have been wiped out due to them no more small pox in the world, no polio or TB in first world countries. Politicians are not having some giant conspiracy to control the world in some oppressive regime of world totalitarianism controlled by the UN, that's just common sense. Plus I will not skip discrediting a man who believes the Earth is 6k years old, that Noahs ark really happened, that the water that caused the flood was held above earth in space by the electromagnetic field, etc etc. This man is a moron who's scientific knowledge is clearly zilch and due to this it is easy to see why this would mean his knowledge of the efficacy of vaccines is so fundamentally flawed.

On June 07 2011 15:23 D_smart_S wrote: Show nested quote + On June 07 2011 14:58 Highcard wrote: I am not watching the video and not going to shit filled internet links. Vaccine are good, you are alive because of them, Stop spewing none sense. DON'T WATCH IT, it will kill your brain cells like marijuana (source: scientific consensus) :D:D:D

no dont watch it because "Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American and Young Earth creationist "

On June 07 2011 10:23 kaisr wrote: Show nested quote + On June 07 2011 08:23 Stroggoz wrote: it's frightening, the amount of people in the world who don't use logic. We should be constantly questioning everything and using logic to get conclusions. People would rather believe something cause someone told them than because it's logical :/ Which links us to the 2nd video, where people tortue others because they were told by authority. Apparently in this world authority beats logic+morality combined Well, maybe that's actually a good thing. a good amount of the population needs to obey authority without question so we can enslave ourselves and get shit done. And the other half need to be the advisers. heh. -.- one of the main points of the videos was that it is easy to categorize the people who do evil things as "others" and "not me", and not realize how powerful situational causes are and how easy it is for us to rationalize any action we take.

i never said i don't fall into that catagory. I was actually thinking of saying that so no one would make this reply -_-

"HIV Does not cause AIDs" is an article written by Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati, Ph.D., DABT, DABVT which was posted on Mercola.com as have thousands of other articles written by other people. source. According to the wikipedia page Mercola has been outspoken in his view on this and this was the linked source. The only thing Mercola wrote on that page was this:

For many, this will be new information, although Dr. Duesberg and Dr. Horowitz have been taking similar positions for many years. Dr. Al-Bayati provides a solid piece of scientific support for the position that HIV does not cause AIDS. Exposure to steroids and the chemicals in our environment, the drugs used to treat AIDS, stress and poor nutrition are possibly the real causes.

I don't see him stating his opinion on this at all. Not exactly what i'd call outspoken and the wikipedia article linked to this article as the source. He simply states that it is "a solid piece of scientific support for the position" and doesn't in any way say he believes that position to be correct.

I found another few short paragraphs on his site that warn that HIV tests may not be actually accurate and that people should share that message to raise awareness. source here.

If we take a look at his background on his site we can see six mentions of HIV and aids:

Premarital HIV Testing JAMA 261:2198, April 21, 1989 Served as editor for HIV Monograph by Abbott Laboratories published in 1989 and distributed to physicians nationally Private Resources Should Share AIDS Funding Responsibility J Amer Osteo Assoc 88:313, March 1988 What Physicians Should Know About AIDS Antibody Testing Osteo Med News December 1988 Premarital HIV Test Is Worth the Money Am Med News p.45 September 9, 1988 Pediatrics and AIDS JAMA 258:3119-3120, December 4, 1987

All this really says is that during 1987-1989 he wrote about AIDs and served as editor for HIV Monograph. I tried following the links on his site but theres nothing that shows his opinion on the matter. Again, not exactly outspoken. I don't really see a reason to go into the content of the actual article and don't believe this is a reason to dismiss anything else.

Regarding heart disease, I quoted a larger paragraph but I bolded the sentence I was referring to. I was only commenting that i did not believe the process of homogenisation to be necessary or beneficial. I didn't and don't particularly want to get into a huge text quoting debate that will take up a lot of our time. Ancel Keys (from my understanding) came up with a theory that fat causes heart disease in 1953. He basically looked at seven countries and saw those countries consumed less fat than America and had lower rates of heart disease. He then decided that fat was the problem and that we should consume less fat. This is the basis of the lipid theory that people accept as fact today. However, it's just not that simple. There are two groups that come to mind as they eat the highest fat diet in the entire world -- namely the Masai tribe and the Eskimos. When Masai/Eskimo people eat their native high fat diet which works out at up to 80% caloric intake from animal fat and a LOT of saturated fat they do not have heart disease like you would expect. There are also countries that generally eat higher fat diets (eg. France) which have much lower rates of heart disease than America and other countries.

When it comes to dairy It's important to distinguish the type of dairy i'm talking about because it's not your typical store bought pasteurised organic stuff from sick cows raised on corn. I'm talking about the raw & organic straight from a grass fed properly raised cow. With this type of dairy (from a healthy animal) there is very little risk of catching anything and people selling raw milk know this. Pastuerised Milk is unhealthy and linked to numerous health problems. It is not simply a decision between drinking potentially bad raw milk and drinking pasteurised "healthy" milk. It is a decision between drinking raw milk or drinking crap. I wouldn't touch the pasteurised stuff and if there was no raw milk i wouldn't drink milk. Once you cook/pasteurise milk you are destroying beneficial enzymes that help absorb calcium and digest lactose which is partly why people have problems with lactose intolerance -- their body doesn't produce enough of the enzyme to digest the milk. You are also destroying probiotic bacteria as well as diminishing the vitamin content of the milk by pasteurising it. The other thing worth mentioning is that raw milk doesn't really go bad like store bought milk does, it just goes sour. The reason is that the bacteria in the milk actually protects it from putrefying.

“Dr. Al-Bayati provides solid scientific support for the position that HIV does not cause AIDS. Exposure to steroids and the chemicals in our environment, the drugs used to treat AIDS, stress and poor nutrition are the real causes.” Mercola.com newsletter, July 11, 2001 Issue 236 “The truth is that AZT, ddI, ddC, protease inhibitors and other drugs termed ‘antiretrovirals’ have not been found in any controlled studies to show proven clinical benefits for HIV/AIDS patients. The only studies published that claim positive outcome were short-term and did not have statistically significant results.” “Even more alarming, there is plenty of evidence that these drugs have been found to cause the very symptoms they are meant to cure. Over 500 MDs and/or PhDs have signed a statement calling for a reappraisal of the causes of AIDS, and questioning whether the symptoms are being caused by HIV.” “What is not mentioned in any textbook is that AZT has been found in five studies performed after its rushed FDA approval to be equally toxic to T-cells, the very cells whose absence is blamed on HIV. This is not surprising since T-cells are produced in the bone marrow, and all the other cells produced there are depleted by AZT. These studies are but a sample of the evidence that suggest that AZT and other ‘antiretrovirals’…are causing a variety of AIDS-like symptoms which are being blamed on HIV.” “Another fact that raises serious questions about the possibility of HIV causing disease is that even after some $45 billion dollars of research funds, scientists cannot figure out how it supposedly destroys T-cells. This is because it does not destroy T-cells in test tubes and has never been shown to destroy them in humans, either.” “An immunologist from Harvard Medical School summed up the problem as follows: ‘We are still very confused about the mechanisms that lead to T-cell depletion, but at least now we are confused at a higher level of understanding.’ A simpler explanation of these problems, especially after $45 billion, is that HIV does not affect T-cells, at all.” Mercola.com, 1999 — Dr. Joseph Mercola, former Chairman of the Family Medicine department at St. Alexius Medical Center, Hoffman Estates, Illinois; served as editor of HIV Monograph by Abbott Laboratories published in 1989 and distributed to physicians nationally. Editor of www.mercola.com, one of the top 10 health websites on the internet

http://aras.ab.ca/aidsquotes.htm

Enough quotes from mercola about HIV not causing AIDS? Him stating "provides solid scientific support for the position that HIV does not cause AIDS" is him stating him opinion on the matter. He is saying flat out that the study was well done and has valid results, he therefore is confirming that he believes the conclusions reached to be valid which in this case is him stating that HIV does not cause AIDS. Further the study he is commenting on was done in 2001 nearly 20 years after science confirmed that AIDS is caused by HIV, it's not like this was still an open question due to the paper being published in 1981 or something, it was a done deal.

Article written by Mercola in 2008 which gives an alternative explanation for the cause of AIDS, saying it is not HIV.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/01/02/azt.aspx

However, it's just not that simple. There are two groups that come to mind as they eat the highest fat diet in the entire world -- namely the Masai tribe and the Eskimos. When Masai/Eskimo people eat their native high fat diet which works out at up to 80% caloric intake from animal fat and a LOT of saturated fat they do not have heart disease like you would expect. There are also countries that generally eat higher fat diets (eg. France) which have much lower rates of heart disease than America.

Because the fats of the Inuit's wild-caught game are largely monounsaturated and rich in omega-3 fatty acids, the diet does not pose the same health risks as a typical Western high-fat diet.[10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet#Nutrition

The French paradox is curious but has explanations largely in the type of fat being eaten, the lifestyles, and the overall diets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Paradox

It really is this simple...cholesterol and trans fats consumed in large amounts causes heart disease. French and Inuits consume very little of either of these compared to Americans which explains why they don't have as high of a heart disease rate.

Pastuerised Milk is unhealthy and linked to numerous health problems.

The only two conditions which may be helped at all by raw milk instead of pasteurized milk are allergies and asthma in children. There are no other conditions what-so-ever that has been accepted or had scientifically verified results to show that pasteurized milk is in anyway unhealthy in comparison. The diseases which pasteurized milk contributes to are the same that raw would contribute to.

“The data fail to support our hypothesis that Raw Milk confers some benefit over Pasteurized Milk in the form of an improvement in the experience of symptoms of lactose intolerant adults.”

http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2010/1...erance-funded-by-raw-milk-supporters/

According to a 2009 review, milkbourne disease outbreaks made up approximately 25% of all food and water contamination disease outbreaks in 1938; pasturization is largely credited for a dramatic decrease in milkbourne disease outbreaks, which made up less than 1% of food and water contamination disease outbreaks by 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_S...te#Health_effects_of_pasteurized_milk

Although milk and dairy products are important components of a healthy diet, if consumed unpasteurized, they also can present a health hazard due to possible contamination with pathogenic bacteria. These bacteria can originate even from clinically healthy animals from which milk is derived or from environmental contamination occurring during collection and storage of milk. The decreased frequency of bovine carriage of certain zoonotic pathogens and improved milking hygiene have contributed considerably to decreased contamination of milk but have not, and cannot, fully eliminate the risk of milkborne disease. Pasteurization is the most effective method of enhancing the microbiological safety of milk. The consumption of milk that is not pasteurized increases the risk of contracting disease from a foodstuff that is otherwise very nutritious and healthy. Despite concerns to the contrary, pasteurization does not change the nutritional value of milk. Understanding the science behind this controversial and highly debated topic will provide public health care workers the information needed to discern fact from fiction and will provide a tool to enhance communication with clients in an effort to reduce the incidence of infections associated with the consumption of unpasteurized milk and dairy products.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19053805

Pasteurizing milk DOES NOT cause lactose intolerance...and allergic reactions. Both raw milk and pasteurized milk can cause allergic reactions in people sensitive to milk proteins. Raw milk DOES NOT kill dangerous pathogens by itself. Pasteurization DOES NOT reduce milk’s nutritional value. Pasteurization DOES NOT mean that it is safe to leave milk out of the refrigerator for extended time, particularly after it has been opened. Pasteurization DOES kill harmful bacteria. Pasteurization DOES save lives.

http://www.knowabouthealth.com/gulping-unpasteurized-milk-can-be-risky/
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/UCM079560.pdf

Number of vitamins actually destroyed, there is not that much destruction of vitamins and those that are destroyed are easily made up for by other food that is consumed.
http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/hsingh2/articles/milk.research.pdf

Once you cook/pasteurise milk you are destroying beneficial enzymes that help absorb calcium and digest lactose which is partly why people have problems with lactose intolerance

This is not true either
"FDA warns consumers not to drink raw, or unpasteurized, milk. "Raw milk advocates claim that pasteurized milk causes lactose intolerance," says John Sheehan, Director of FDA's Division of Plant and Dairy Food Safety. "This is simply not true. All milk, whether raw or pasteurized, contains lactose, and pasteurization does not change the concentration of lactose nor does it convert lactose from one form into another."

Raw milk advocates also claim that raw milk prevents or cures the symptoms of lactose intolerance. Arguing that raw milk contains Bifidobacteria, they claim these microorganisms are beneficial (probiotic) and create their own lactase, which helps people digest the milk.

"This is not true, either," says Sheehan. "Raw milk can contain Bifidobacteria, but when it does, the bacteria come from fecal matter (animal manure) and are not considered probiotic, but instead are regarded as contaminants."

Drinking raw milk will still cause uncomfortable symptoms in people who are correctly diagnosed as being lactose intolerant. But worse than this discomfort are the dangers of raw milk, which can harbor a host of disease-causing germs, says Sheehan. "These microorganisms can cause very serious, and sometimes even fatal, disease conditions in humans."
http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm094550.htm#raw

It is true that people with lactose intolerance have it due to an a lack of the lactase enzyme but it has nothing to do with the pasteurization of milk.

They believe that pasteurized milk is less nutritious, more allergenic and more liable to cause lactose intolerance. They also claim that raw milk contains antibacterial components that render pasteurization unnecessary. Unfortunately, however, there is no scientific support for such claims. Studies have found only minor nutritional differences between raw and pasteurized milk, which are insignificant. Raw and pasteurized milk are equally allergenic (they contain the same proteins), both contain the same amount of lactose (meaning that lactose intolerant people can’t drink either type), and raw milk has not been shown to contain antibacterial chemicals.

http://www.everydayhealth.com/blog/zi...-can-use/raw-milk-helpful-or-harmful/

The other thing worth mentioning is that raw milk doesn't really go bad like store bought milk does, it just goes sour. The reason is that the bacteria in the milk actually protects it from putrefying.

Again, not true.

Organic milk lasts longer because producers use a different process to preserve it. According to the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, the milk needs to stay fresh longer because organic products often have to travel farther to reach store shelves since it is not produced throughout the country. The process that gives the milk a longer shelf life is called ultrahigh temperature (UHT) processing or treatment, in which milk is heated to 280 degrees Fahrenheit (138 degrees Celsius) for two to four seconds, killing any bacteria in it.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/art...?id=experts-organic-milk-lasts-longer

Pasteurization itself also destroys spoilage bacteria, extending the shelf life of milk.

http://www.extension.umn.edu/foodsafety/components/columns/Oct29.htm

UHT (ultra high temperature) pasteurized milk, by far has the longest shelf life of any form of milk there is.

GGPLZ is spot on and the whole cholesterol/saturated fat theory has no merit to it. The hardest things to disprove are the things that have been around the longest with the least amount of explanation (the cholesterol/saturated fat is bad theory). Here is a study - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20685950

Just as a personal anecdote, I ate a low cholesterol diet and had high cholesterol. I started eating more animal meat like steak, saturated fat like coconut oil and high cholesterol eggs cooked in coconut oil every single day. I also stopped eating all sugary foods and focused more on vegetables and some fruits (yes fruits have sugar, but I avoided the type of sugar found in candy) My retested cholesterol was lower. High cholesterol is more likely a problem of inflammatory processes in the body rather than some sort of weird type of dietary cholesterol overload blockage. We would just like to think our bodies are that simple, thing is we need to look even more microscopically at things such as bacterias.

On vaccines, they are absolutely not 100% safe. There are vaccine injury compensation programs set up because people have been hurt by vaccines. How does this not raise a red flag? Even more scary is the idea that there can be more long term/less noticeable problems that vaccines can cause that would not be compensated for because they are harder to prove.

Vaccines are for the greater good of the population, but not for the greater health of any single individual. If one is seeking the highest health for their kid, they would opt for everyone in the world to have vaccinations except for their kid.

I haven't read much of the comments or watched any videos, but the title of the thread scares me "science denial". I totally endorse that stupid illogical following of things can be bad. Yet, I am completely cognizant of the other argument.

A huge problem in science is the appeal to authority and pseudoskepticism. Pseudoskepticism is when a scientist acts as though they are being skeptical of a study or claim when really they are just doing whatever it takes to push their own agenda for personal (possibly financial) reasons. I'd say appeal to authority and pseudoskepticism are incredibly powerful.

The hardest things to disprove are the things that have been around the longest with the least amount of explanation (the cholesterol/saturated fat is bad theory).

There's plenty of evidence to prove the hypothesis. You have an article here or there. Multiple scientific reviews confirm the hypothesis through evidence

Summary table Systematic review Relationship between cardiovascular disease and saturated fatty acids (SFA) Mozaffarian, 2010[2] 19% reduction in Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) events by replacing saturated fatty acids (SFA) with polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) Siri-Tarino, 2010[1] insignificant Danaei, 2009[3] 5% additional mortality risk for each 1% calories exchanging PUFA for SFA Mente, 2009[4] insignificant Mozaffarian, 2009[5] Reduced risk associated with monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) and PUFA compared with SFA and trans-fatty acids (TFA) Skeaff, 2009[6] reduced events by substituting PUFA Jakobsen, 2009[7] 5% exchange of SFA for PUFA: 13% decrease events, 26% decrease deaths Van Horn, 2008[8] 25-35% fats but <7% SFA and TFA reduces risk Chanu, 2003[9] significant in longer term Hooper, 2001[10] reducing total fat, SFA or cholesterol intake reduced events by 16% and deaths by 9%. Longer-term trials led to 24% reduction Hu, 1999[11] exchanging SFA for nuts gave 45% reduction Truswell, 1994[12] decrease SFA and cholesterol intake, partial replacement with PUFA: 6% reduced deaths, 13% reduced events

Only 2 reviews say it's insignificant, the other 10 say it is.

Further

Mainstream authorities [edit] Specialist/professional textbooks The 2009 European Society of Cardiology Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine states that in cohort studies the positive relationship between fat intake and CVDs was linked to their saturated fatty acid content.[17] 2007's Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation states that large epidemiological studies have shown consistent associations between the intake of saturated fatty acids and CHD mortality.[18] According to the 2007 Critical Pathways in Cardiovascular Medicine, substituting unsaturated fat for saturated fat may lower LDL cholesterol without simultaneously lowering HDL cholesterol. This dietary principle partly underlies the Mediterranean style of diet, which has been associated with reduced cardiovascular event rates in two randomized controlled trials.[19] The 2003 second edition of Evidence-based Cardiology in 'PartII: Prevention of cardiovascular diseases' recommends a low intake of SFA, less than 7% of daily calories, and intake of foods rich in myristic and palmitic acids should be especially reduced. The recommendation was evaluated to be supported by the best grade of available evidence.[20] [edit] Position statements and guidelines of major health organizations [edit] Medical establishments In 2003 a World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) expert consultation report concluded that "intake of saturated fatty acids is directly related to cardiovascular risk. The traditional target is to restrict the intake of saturated fatty acids to less than 10%, of daily energy intake and less than 7% for high-risk groups. If populations are consuming less than 10%, they should not increase that level of intake. Within these limits, intake of foods rich in myristic and palmitic acids should be replaced by fats with a lower content of these particular fatty acids. In developing countries, however, where energy intake for some population groups may be inadequate, energy expenditure is high and body fat stores are low (BMI <18.5 kg/m2). The amount and quality of fat supply has to be considered keeping in mind the need to meet energy requirements. Specific sources of saturated fat, such as coconut and palm oil, provide low-cost energy and may be an important source of energy for the poor."21] In its 2007 guidelines, the European Society of Cardiology states that there are strong, consistent, and graded relationships between saturated fat intake, blood cholesterol levels, and the mass occurrence of cardiovascular disease. The relationships are accepted as causal.[22] The Mayo Clinic considers saturated fats potentially harmful and monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats potentially helpful. It references the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010 and recommends reducing foods rich in saturated fat and emphasizing options with more monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats.[23] The British Dietetic Association guidelines found good evidence in systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials that reducing saturated fat reduces morbidity in patients with CVD.[24] The 2007 position statement of the American Dietetic Association and the Dieticians of Canada holds that epidemiological studies have shown a positive association between the intake of saturated fatty acid and the incidence of coronary heart disease.[25] [edit] Heart-health organizations Consumption of saturated fat is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease in the view of the Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation,[26] the American Heart Association,[27] the British Heart Foundation,[28] the National Heart Foundation of Australia,[29] the National Heart Foundation of New Zealand [30] and the World Heart Federation.[31] The Irish Heart Foundation states that saturated fats can raise your LDL cholesterol and increase your chances of getting heart disease.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturate...lar_disease_controversy#Summary_table

12 professional organizations all confirm the idea the saturated fat in large numbers causes heart problems. This isn't a new issue as if something has been raised recently that wasn't around before. The debate about whether or not this was true was held in the 70s-80s and was decided that the lipid hypothesis was indeed correct. There has been no evidence provided since then, not a single medical establishment or heart-health organization have changed their opinion. This is the same crap as the ppl who deny global warming, it was a debate in the 70s, now-a-days its accepted fact. Its an issue of a small minority in the scientific community not getting it's way and refusing to accept the fact that they were wrong despite 40 yrs of evidence and the vast majority of drs and scientists in the field telling them they are wrong.

On vaccines, they are absolutely not 100% safe

Nothing in medicine is 100% safe, an appendectomy is sometimes harmful but the plus far outweighs the negative. The same is with vaccines any negative is easily outweighed

not for the greater health of any single individual.

Not true at all, anyone vaccinated against a disease right now has had a major health increase and the risk of having an adverse reaction to the vaccination is far less then the risk of getting a disease like polio or diphtheria It takes multiple generations of complete innoculation to have a virus die out in nature. Its best to vaccinate everyone in the world for 30 or so years to see if the virus has died out and then never have to vaccinate anyone. If I was seeking the highest health for my kid I'd easily get them vaccinated, would rather have them be vaccinated then be the last recorded person with small pox or polio.

push their own agenda for personal (possibly financial) reasons

Like Joseph Mercola who has a giant natural health website, spreads false information about disease, nutrition, and health. Then sells things on his website like Astaxanthin ( http://products.mercola.com/astaxanthin/ ) on his website claiming all these wonderful things + Show Spoiler +

None of which have actually been proven, it's just a bunch of trumped up claims from studies saying "it may be helpful as it is an anti-oxidant".

Also sells shit like the "Vitamin B12 Energy Booster Spray" http://products.mercola.com/vitamin-b12-spray/ claiming it has all these amazing effects which have never been proven at all.

Seriously look at all the nutritional products mercola sells http://products.mercola.com/ it's no wonder his entire website is built around bullshit medical advise, he makes a fortune off of it.

I agree that there are extremists on both sides of the argument that take advantage of people who are willing to believe anything they WANT to hear and pay money for it. So Mercola is trying to make money, who else has money at stake? Try the current status quo for treatment/prevention of the diseases saturated fat and cholesterol are supposed to cause.

Here is a nice thread with good sources, too lazy to post more now - http://www.mindandmuscle.net/forum/34576-saturated-fat#post513095

But um, b12 is one of the greatest supplements you can take for general health, along with vitamin d3 and magnesium. A good multivitamin and fruits and veggies is always good.

The cholesterol saturated fat stuff you posted on saying that since some great esteemed professional organizations say it is so, it is so. You should spend some more time researching the other side of the argument. Lately, there are some legitimate sources out there that completely debunk all the bs. People think that since we have such great technology and such that we must know and be sure of so much more than we really are.

But um, b12 is one of the greatest supplements you can take, along with vitamin d3 and magnesium. A good multivitamin and fruits and veggies is always good.

I completely agree w/ taking a multivitamin (which will have more all the vitamins a person needs in a day) and eating well. My problem with things like his B12 supplement are quotes like this

Tiredness and feelings of weakness...* Less-than-optimal nervous system functioning...* Less-than-optimal eye health...* Loss of appetite and unintended weight loss...* Occasional constipation and gas...* Feelings of mild moodiness...* Less-than-optimal memory...* A tendency toward nervousness...* Less-than-optimal balance...* Less-than-optimal liver or heart health...* Premature grey hair... Occasional digestive issues... ...you may need to supplement with vitamin B12,

better thing if you are losing sight or have nervous system problems, go to the fucking doctor, don't just sit and spray vitamin b12 in ur mouth.
or chlorella saying

Aids you in processing more oxygen* Cleanses key elimination systems like your bowel, liver, and blood* Helps purify your blood and clean away toxins* Aids you in promoting optimal blood pressure* Supports elimination of molds in your body* Helps neutralize bad air you might breathe in* Promotes growth and repair of your tissues*

He makes insane claims about how all of his products are the highest quality healing products on the market and will fix pretty much anything.

The cholesterol saturated fat stuff you posted on saying that since some great esteemed professional organizations say it is so, it is so...Lately, there are some legitimate sources out there that completely debunk all the bs.

I havn't seen any that debunk anything, and I've looked at them quite a bit ever since posting this. The evidence is no different then evidence ppl claim disproves global warming, or the efficacy of vaccines, or evolution, it is very small and can typically be explained away through poor study methodologies. Alot of the studies don't actually make the claims they are made out to, like that japanese study just it happened in this one study, they make no claims that their studies are conclusive. It is also very typical that the studies conclude something like "more trials should be run", then when more trials are run they disprove the initial study. However, people who stick in this minority will distort the evidence, they will ignore the vast amount of data against their views, will cling to the studies often claiming "more trials should be run" to give themselves scientific sounding backing while ignoring the studies which followed and disproved the original. Scientific groups take a long time to release consensus statements on things and will retract/change statements quickly when there are legitimate studies saying they should. When it comes to something where every major organization, representing millions of doctors, release statements agreeing with each other whatever they are agreeing on is going to be right 99.9999999% of the time. Many organizations will remain non-committal if there is at all any reason for the evidence to not be conclusive.

Im not backing down at all, but I would like to say that people who purposefully go out of their way to avoid saturated fat and cholesterol aren't benefiting their health, and this includes people with current health problems such as high cholesterol.

^depends fully what they are avoiding it for and what they are putting in its place. If they are adding on high glycemic index carbohydrates, and trans fats (in place of saturated fats) meanwhile not exercising properly as many people don't thinking "well i'm not eating fats therefore I don't need to exercise as much" then not only are they not benefiting their health, they are severely worsening it then if they were just eating the saturated fats/cholesterol. If however they maintain a good exercise regime, eat a balanced diet, and replace the excess saturated fats they were eating with fruits, vegetables, whole grain, and nuts (among many other things), then they (in the long term) will see a marked improvement in their cardiovascular health.

For example if someone says fuck saturated fats i'm just going to eat an extra bowl of frosted flakes then they arn't helping themselves at all. But if they replace the saturated fats with a peach then they will long term see a positive change.

Here is a nice thread with good sources, too lazy to post more now - http://www.mindandmuscle.net/forum/34576-saturated-fat#post513095

The article the main guy links to saying "can we put this to rest now" links to Siri-Tarino et all, which is one of the 2 reviews which have reach the conclusion of insignificant. There are still 10 other studies which have found it to be significant including one in 2010 (same yr as his study).

on the second page when he says "bring on the butter" it links to a science daily article which says

Now a new study from Lund University in Sweden shows that butter leads to considerably less elevation of blood fats after a meal compared with olive oil and a new type of canola and flaxseed oil. The difference was stronger in men than in women.... "The findings provide a more nuanced picture of various dietary fats. Olive oil has been studied very thoroughly, and its benefits are often extolled. The fact that butter raises blood cholesterol in the long term is well known, whereas its short-term effects are not as well investigated. Olive oil is good, to be sure, but our findings indicate that different food fats can have different advantages," emphasizes Julia Svensson.

This article clearly states the investigation was short term and the scientists who performed the study stated themselves that butter in the long term is worse for a person then olive oil. Of course he mentions none of this and just goes on as if he found a study which prove his point.

The questionable role of saturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids in cardiovascular disease. Ravnskov U.

cited on page 2 as another gem is written by

Uffe Ravnskov, M.D., Ph.D., of Lund, Sweden, is an independent researcher (see www.ravnskov.nu/uffe). He is the spokesman for THINCS, The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics (www.thincs.org) and author of . E-mail: uffe.ravnskov@swipnet.se

http://www.jpands.org/vol8no3/ravnskov.pdf
With those associations I'm sure he was non-biased during his review

Further person says citing anything by AHA means they should be ignored, ya anyone who cites a major heart organization who's staff/board members are all doctors should just be ignored...meanwhile a single study by the spokesman for Cholesterol skiptics should be taken as unbiased and accurate...ok....

Saturated fat and cardiometabolic risk factors, coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes: a fresh look at the evidence. Micha R, Mozaffarian D. Based on consistent evidence from human studies, replacing SFA with polyunsaturated fat modestly lowers coronary heart disease risk, with ~10% risk reduction for a 5% energy substitution; whereas replacing SFA with carbohydrate has no benefit and replacing SFA with monounsaturated fat has uncertain effects. Evidence for the effects of SFA consumption on vascular function, insulin resistance, diabetes, and stroke is mixed, with many studies showing no clear effects, highlighting a need for further investigation of these endpoints. Public health emphasis on reducing SFA consumption without considering the replacement nutrient or, more importantly, the many other food-based risk factors for cardiometabolic disease is unlikely to produce substantial intended benefits.

This guy is really good at misreading studies that don't actually prove his point.

Again another study quoted by Benson which actually says in the abstract that saturated fat increases the risk for heart disease, the study just says that replace the fats with carbohydrates has no benefit (cuz it'll make u obese), and monounsaturated fats they couldn't tell if there was a benefit.


I can't access the third page due to whatever view limits or some shit. But so far every post by Benson was him either misreading a study, or having a study done that was likely biased (not saying certainly since maybe he managed to stay unbiased despite serving on the board of a organization that promotes cholesterol as being healthy). None of his studies or posts actually prove his point at all. Many of them actually contradict his point, he just isn't very good at reading apparently. The Siri-Tarino study is the only one with any veracity imo.


Baha, fuck Benson

A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

From the study ttp://www.ajcn.org/content/91/3/535 which is the review that started off the whole thread.

Siri-Torino et all follow up study which was suggested by the bold line in the above conclusion states.

However, replacement with a higher carbohydrate intake, particularly refined carbohydrate, can exacerbate the atherogenic dyslipidemia associated with insulin resistance and obesity that includes increased triglycerides, small LDL particles, and reduced HDL cholesterol. In summary, although substitution of dietary polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat has been shown to lower CVD risk, there are few epidemiologic or clinical trial data to support a benefit of replacing saturated fat with carbohydrate

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20089734

So this is an EXACT case of people coming up with a study which says further studies need to be done. Which people latch onto as proving their point. Studies are eventually done (in this case published a few months later) which states that saturated fats do cause heart problems but everyone ignored it because it no longer proves their point.

Going through the rest of bensons posts

Inverse association of dietary fat with development of ischemic stroke in men. Gillman MW, Cupples LA, Millen BE, Ellison RC, Wolf PA. Dietary fat intake and risk of stroke in male US healthcare professionals: 14 year prospective cohort study. He K, Merchant A, Rimm EB, Rosner BA, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC, Ascherio A.

has nothing to do with heart health so irrelevant.

then he has 2 studies about rat diets which he admits are just interesting but not relevant either.

So he doesn't have a single study there which says that saturated fats do not contribute to heart disease. They just all say that when replaced with carbohydrates there may not be or is not a benefit (other studies disagree hence why the subject of carbohydrates replacing saturated fats is currently debatable). Notice also how he only bolds lines which specifically agree with him whereas if you read the entire paragraph the study is saying something completely different then if you just read his bolded lines.

Let me try to explain how our body works. You've got millions of cells in the human body that all work in a specific way. Imagine them as workers on a building. They all need specific tools in order to do their job as best as they can. If they get enough of every single tool they need, our immune system would be working full throtle. These tools are specific elements/minerals/etc. and they are categorized by medicine according to the function they have. Some of them are vitamins, others are minerals such as magnesium, calcium, zing and so on. Each of these elements have hundreds of functions literally! Let's take Magnesium for example. If the level of magnesium in the blood drops just a little bit, we become much more prone to heart attacks. It is also the best relaxant (sp?) for our body. If we don't take magnesium, our bones solidify and we get arthritis, osteoporosis and so on because magnesium counteracts the solidifying effect of calcium.

What are diseases? Diseases come when our body lacks one or more of those "tools" and/or we intake contaminants. In a sense, a perfectly healthy body would be one that is supplied with all the "tools" for the "workers" and has 0 contaminants. How is this possible? Well, remember that there is a counter-strategy for every strategy, we just need to find it. Getting rid of the contaminants is possible through the intake of chlorophyll or Niacin (Vitamin B3). That is the easy part. Now, how do you UP every single element and mineral that your body needs. They are around a hundred of them. The difficult way is through our daily food. However, cooking and processing food kills most of the good stuff (and bad stuff ofcourse) and we have to literally eat 24 hours a day to keep the levels of all the elements to the maximum. Practically, it is impossible. That is why everyone on Earth has gone through an illness at least once in his life. But there should be a way to increase those vitamins and minerals by taking supplements. There are, however, some EXTREMELY high-concentrated foods on many of the essential "tools" that our cells need desperately. Take chlorella for example - extremely high protein source; extreme levels of chlorophyll, super-high levels of DNA. And they are all natural - meaning that absorbation would be as fast as it can get. I will use this example to show you what Big Pharma does all the time. They take chlorella, study the effects it has on our body and they make a pill called Chloresin for example. Legally, they are not allowed to patent the food (algae) itself so they make a synthetic clone where they put most of the good stuff. However, synthetic X is much worse than natural X. And it is fucking logical if you ask me. Just as we can't make a human clone as good as the original through genetic engineering. That's why every pill has numerous side effects. There are some pills that you can find"heart attack" as a side effect. For real?!? A good example of cloning a herb is Marinol and marijuana. Why the fuck does Big Pharma go to make a pill mimicking marijuana and doesn't just make marijuana dispensaries selling weed? Because pills are WAY MORE PROFITABLE.
Modern medicine has its great innovations but they are mostly in other fields such as surgery. The whole pill-industry is based on studying natural elements and minerals that are essential for our cells to function, suppressing their natural source and manufacturing and selling synthetic clones of vitamins and minerals that are abundant in nature.

^except for the vast number of drugs which are solely synthesized in a lab which have no natural analog. Also diseases typically come from viruses/bacteria and have nothing to do with our bodys nutrition at the time (except for a better or worse immune response). Humans don't need to eat 24 hrs/day either to maintain nutrient levels to max efficiency. I'm all for supplementation, but a simple multivitamin with a decent diet works just fine, you don't need all the niacin and b12 spray and all that extra crap.