Most people are not aware that the foundations of biology, medicine, and nutrition are so "shaky." For example, in the book titled “The Billion-Dollar Molecule�?(1994) by Werth, Mark Murko, who sought to delineate structures of proteins, states:
“…not all the equations we use to describe those
interactions are accurate. Some of them are fudge factors. Some of them are thought to be correct even though the experimental data
they’re based on are wrong, only nobody knows that because nobody’s gone back and double-checked the experiments. Some are pure guesses. There are assumptions, biases. There’s user error. There’s imprecision in the hardware and software.�?BR>
Page 303. And on page 209, it is said that the chemist Joshua Boger thinks biology is “too mushy.�?Boger states:
“I mean, what are the basic concepts of biology and how sure are we of them? Well, there aren’t any, hardly. It isn’t that the people are stupid, it’s that the data isn’t there.�?
Those who have attempted to build proper foundations, such as Gilbert Ling, have been largely ignored, and proper funding has been witheld when he sought it for important experiments (see his book, "Life at the cell and below-cell level" if this interests you, or visit his web site at www.gilbertling.org).
So what are these "sciences" based upon? Untested "models," assumptions that appeared reasonable to people who wrote the textbooks, markers that correlate with clinic symptoms (usually called "diseases" or "syndromes"), or flawed experiments that are still be cited (some are still cited in the professional literature, such as the 1930 Burr & Burr "essential fatty acid" experiment on rats, even though it was refuted in 1948).
The markers that correlate can then be examined in an epidemiological context and advice given to the public by "public health experts." Let's take an example: there is a big increase in heart attack deaths among men in their 40s and 50s. Researchers notice that these men have higher serum cholesterol levels (though there are other markers they ignore for whatever reason or are totally unaware of), and so they put the word out that lowering cholesterol is something everyone should do. They don't know why this is the case, nor do they know if this advice will do more harm than good, but they do know that there is a correlation, and they have nothing else, so they "run with it." The fact that the fathers and grandfathers of these men ate plenty of cholesterol and saturated fatty acids and did not die of heart attacks apparently never dawns on them. Now, there are plenty of studies that introduce a concept that is as insidious as they come, scientifically. For example, many researchers, assuming that "high cholesterol is bad," use this notion as a "surrogate endpoint," meaning that they don't care whether lowering cholesterol results in a much higher mortality rate, either from heart disease or in general. As long as the result was that the cholesterol levels of the subjects was lowered by the agent used, they can say that the experiment was a great success and that the agent (usually a drug) should be marketed to people with "high cholesterol," the definition of which changes from time to time.
Fortunately, there is now plenty of molecular level evidence and better understanding of the effects of oxidizing activity on biological systems to understand the exact mechanism, rather than relying on speculation. Read my post: How polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) cause "heart disease." if you want more information about this particular phenomenon.
One of the most important goals of this newsgroup is to point out to people that they do not have to rely on the models, markers, correlations, etc., but, if they are willing to put some time into it, learn about the exact mechanisms involved.
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
