Posted on 04/30/2016 4:16:08 AM PDT by rellimpank
In the second half of the 20th century, conventional wisdom in the medical community held that overconsumption of saturated fats — the kind found in milk, cheese, meats and butter — was dangerous. And so, between 1968 and 1973, a well-planned, well-executed study involving more than 9,000 patients was performed to test this widely accepted relationship between diet and heart disease.
The results of the Minnesota Coronary Experiment were notable for two reasons. First, the findings contradicted much of what was believed at the time: The study demonstrated that people who ate a diet rich in saturated fats did not go on to have more heart disease than those who ate a diet rich in polyunsaturated fat from vegetable oil.
Second, and perhaps more important, these iconoclastic findings went unpublished until 1989 and then saw the light of day only in an obscure medical journal with few readers. One of the principal investigators told a science journalist that he sat on the results for 16 years and didn't publish because "we were just so disappointed in the way they turned out."
The long-forgotten study was revisited with a recent analysis of the original data and published this month by the National Institutes of Health in the prestigious, and well-read, British Medical Journal.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Gary Taubes, a great writer for Science, outed this stuff in a massively documented book, “Good Calories, Bad Calories,” and I recapped the info in a chapter of my 2010 book, “Seven Events That Made America.”
I sure would like to find out this idiot's name. Why on earth would any "real" scientist care about "the way they turned out"? Does he perhaps own stock in a margarine company??
Didn’t publish his finding because the government money well would dry up as soon as his findings didn’t support the Inquisitions’ agenda?
Ping
This book and others like it is the reason my wife and I went on a Low-carb (no sugar, grains or root vegetables) high fat diet about 6 years ago. We eat only good fats such as saturated fats, coconut oil, olive oil macadamia oil, avocado oil and some polys with good omega 3/6 balance. Very little vegetable oils. No margarine. No more sickness at all since then. All metabolic markers (including weight) much improved. For health, diet is everything.
Dr. Lysenko, please pick up the white courtesy phone.
From the article:
“All of this poses the danger that there may not be enough skeptical science in the medical and scientific literature. Groupthink may be as dangerous to the public as the ever-expanding legion of scientific frauds, quacks and celebrities eager for publicity or a quick buck.”
Perhaps the author hasn’t noticed what happens to those scientists who buck “Groupthink” in the “climate change” venue - Democrat senators and attorneys general are now even plotting how to get those folks charged with criminal behavior.
Especially so. AGW is SciFaith-as-dogma on steroids. We should stop calling what the mainstream does as "Science". Science is a method. What the "consensus" practices is SciFaith.
“Settled science” means “not open to scientific investigation.” In general only religion and closed political systems are closed to scientific study. A cursory study of global warming reveals it is faith based and an ideologically closed system.
The primary authority for global warming is political. Its proponents are positioned to buy the loyalty of university facilities through the simple application of perpetually renewable government grants for research that substantiate the claims of global warmists. There is no government funded objective research on global warming.
The primary function of global warming is extortion. Industry particularly is obliged to provide substantial finaincial support for government. Ideological Marxism plays a critical role in the perpetuation of the global warming scam.
Financially stable governments and societies are under enormous pressure to “share the wealth” of their success with governments that fail their people. Tyrants, communist states, criminal enterprises, and bloated bureaucracies are the main beneficiaries of global warming funding.
Global warming practitioners are never obliged to reduce global warming. Their intent is to increase taxation based on the volume of “warming elements” produced by advanced communities. When industry, for example, reduced its carbon emissions another more insidious practice is discovered producing even more severe global warming trends.
Global warming must be viewed clearly and simply for what it really is, a criminal confidence scam perpetuated by governments on the accumulation of wealth. It has no other purpose. It serves no other master.
I have never seen the phrase “settled science” any where but here
the phrase is used by those that have no science or “don’t believe” in science. they disparage science because they perceive conflict with their religion
Liberal politicians dole out research money to academics who are expected to come up with the desired result of their research, even if they have to phony up the data. If they come up with a result that refutes "global warming" their money gets cut off.
My guess is that the expression "settled" as in "science" is rooted in the expression "settled law".
Neither law nor science is settled in the strict sense of the word.
Consensus in law has meaning whilst consensus in science has not.
Scientists whose findings go against the grain regularly find their careers stunted and they fall into either ridicule or obscurity.
But considering what he could do with presumably no direct industry pressure, just imagine how many industry-funded scientists are pressured to bend or bury their findings.
And it assuredly doesn’t just happen in nutrition and medicine. Climate change, anyone?
I have been eating a carb free diet for about 6 months. All need for insulin is gone, blood pressure is low and stable, health is excellent and weight is down 50 pounds. I eat fatty foods, no starches, no sugar, no fruit, lots of meat and veggies.
Feel great.
amen
God bless Dr. Atkins, may he RIP!
Thank YOU!
I have seen the phrase settled science used by both side in the global warming debates, along with it’s cousin consensus.
Most other fields of science seem to actively avoid those phrases. The closest fields like geology and physics seem to come are lines like “dominant paradigm”.
Real science is always skeptical and much effort is properly spent verifying theories. The test of a theory is whether or not it can accurately predict physically verifiable phenomenon.
It is the inability of global warming theory and models to predict accurately that is their downfall. Climate science is no longer science. As we all know, climate science is now mostly political. Dietary salt and fat are political as well.
One clear indication of how political climate science has become is the fact the Pope and the Catholic Church have weighed in. Ask Copernicus how that works...
Dr. Wm. Campbell Douglass tried to tell us this for many
years. Yet the vegetarian “experts” out there lambasted
him as a quack. - Well, he lived into his 90th year, long
after a lot of these “experts” had already become the
dearly departed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.