The CDC's bogus study

The Washington Times ^ | 2-28-05

[Always Right]

Sorry, but dogma, from any source, is still dogma. One size fits all is evidence of a mental straightjacket, often resulting is pure bullshit!

We are all human, and nutrition is nutrition. The idea that saturated fats and simply carbohydrates might be good for one person but bad for another is bullshit. Anyone who spends their life eating only at McDonalds will deterioate into bad health.

[Always Right]

"False, but accurate." -- Dan Rather, 2004.

Come to think of it, that statement sums up liberalthink better than anything I ever heard of. Never used a tagline, but that one might become mine.

[Just another Joe]

While this research may have been flawed, it does not mean that scientific research into the problem is not warranted

I don't think scientific research is, necessarily, a bad thing.
When research is done to, only, support bad conclusions - Then it is a bad thing.

Is being overweight a health risk? Sure.
Is being overweight being blamed for causing 400K deaths a year? Sure
Does being overweight actually CAUSE 400K deaths a year? I seriously doubt it.

The CDC is known for touting it's own studies, at the expense of scientific methodology, for political causes.

[savedbygrace]

A year or two ago, I experienced some ozone therapy.

I was sick as a dog with the flu. I had all the symptoms of flu, and I visited a DO who specializes in alternative therapies. He gave me an ozone therapy IV drip, and a UV treatment (take some of your blood out, run it through a UV machine, then return it to your vein). Between those two treatments, I was feeling significantly better within the hour, and by the next day I was fine.

Not exactly a scientific study of the thing, but it's my one experience with it (and I'm assuming the ozone therapy I got was similar to what you're referring to.)