MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The Scientific Debate Forum.Contains "mature" content, but not necessarily adult.[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  Disclaimer: Read this page first.  
  Links  
  Messages  
  General  
  Nutrition  
  "Mission Statement."  
  Why the "germ theory" is not science.  
  The Underlying Cause of "Disease."  
  The Scientific Method.  
  How dangerous are bacteria and viruses?  
  The Contributions of Hans Selye and others.  
  How direct effects are often ignored, and indirect markers used  
  Understanding "disease" at the molecular level.  
  Understanding disease at the molecular level, part II.  
  What the "common cold" can teach us about illness.  
  The AA connection to today's common "diseases."  
  How easy the key experiments would be to do.  
  The best practical diet and the explanation for it.  
  Fish oil quotes you might want to read  
  Where the "immune system" fits into this view of "disease."  
  How many 'scientific studies' violate the scientific method  
  Why you have to be careful with antioxidants.  
  Why Cancers today are more aggressive than those of the past.  
  The Latest Evidence.  
  Some studies worthy of note.  
  HSWC "in action."  
  How language can impede science.  
  How language impedes science, part II.  
  More on why "germs" don't cause "disease."  
  How a latent virus actually causes "disease."  
  A new report that "says it all."  
  The science "show" must go on?  
  Odds and ends  
  Some thoughts on a book by Robert Gallo.  
  Saturated fatty acids are the solution, not the problem.  
  It's stress, not "germs" that causes disease.  
  Epidemiology: Facts versus "factoids."  
  It's stress, not germs, part II.  
  The latest on "inflammation."  
  Why many nutritional claims make no sense  
  The use of hypotheticals in science.  
  What "viral infections" really do to the body.  
  What determines longevity?  
  An example of an anti-"saturated fat" study that is flawed.  
  A Rough Guide to a Gentle Diet.  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV."  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV." Part II.  
  Okay, so when is this diet going to kill me?  
  Scientific Debate Forum Pictures  
  The EFA Claim Was Refuted Long Ago  
    
  
  
  Tools  
 
General : The "Meditterean" and other diets.
Choose another message board
View All Messages
  Prev Message  Next Message       
Reply
 Message 1 of 2 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameJamieDH4  (Original Message)Sent: 6/18/2007 5:47 AM
Hans-

I don't know if you ever witness this in "science" or on the "news", but I witness it all the time. What it is is when a person or corporation (administration, group, association, etc) opposes a particular idea they generally try to "debunk" the other's ideas. Frequently, what they do is they address points that the people they oppose aren't even making. I am just going to post some general examples, with no real references because it's not really neccessary for the point I am making.

- I see talk of this "Meditterean" diet a lot, and it usually in a very encouraging manner. They usually say that the meditterean diet is high in legumes, canola oil, cereals.... etc. It's not though. I spent an entire week in the Meditterean sea this past January and I saw not one bottle of Canola Oil, no one single dish with any beans in it (except for soup), and not a single solitary person eating "cereal".
On the contrary, these people were eating a lot of butter, and olive oil, cheeses, breads and a whole slew of things that we consider to be "bad" in the US.

- Back in about 2003/2004 there was a lot of talk about the Dr. Atkins diet. I personally was a huge fan of his at the time and I read his books myself, with my very own eyes. I would get very uspet when I would see a "nutritionist" speaking against his books and teachings and they weren't even accurately representing his diet. I am not saying his diet is healthy, thats besides the point, but they would address points that I never once saw him make in any of his books.
They would call his diet a "No-Carb Diet" which is wasn't. Dr. Atkins diet was initially very restrictive on carbohydrates, but he did not encourage this restriction for more then two weeks. After these two weeks he encouraged adding back carbs in the form of berries and vegetables. They never would include this little fact though in their reviews of his diet. So while it is true that the first weeks were very resterictive on carbs, this was only for the first few weeks and they were therefore misrepresenting the points he was trying to make. His diet was never a no carb diet.
They would talk about how Dr. Atkins encouraged gorging on limitless amounts of food. If you read his book though, he explicitly states that you should only eat until you are satisfied, and that the fact you don't need to monitor calories does not mean it's a licence to gorge.

- If you read any review of the AIDS "denialists" you will see that the person trying to "debunk" their questioning always tries to say that the "denialists" are denying that people are dying of AIDS. I have never once seen a "denialist" deny that anyone has died. I have seen "denialist" question WHAT it is that the death was caused by, but never that the person actually died.

I just can't stand this. I wanted to start a thread where we can post examples of how people trying to make one point get their viewpoints misrepresented in the media or scientific communities.


Replies to This Message The number of members that recommended this message.    
     re: The "Meditterean" and other diets.   MSN NicknameHansSelyeWasCorrect  6/18/2007 10:13 PM