10
   

Nutrition Science is a Fraud

 
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 01:29 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

InfraBlue,

The target of your attack in the opening thread was "Nutrition Science". In the title of the thread you are attacking an entire field of science as "fraudulent". That is an attack on science.

No. Specifically, it's an attack on nutrition science.


maxdacona wrote:
Here is the problem.... sometimes legitimate science contradicts your point of view. When this happens, the rational thing to do is to change your opinions to match the new scientific evidence. Instead what happens is that people label the science as "fraudulent".

That is an attack on science.

When a field of science has been corrupted and institutional policies have been based on that corrupt science one must be skeptical of the field in question, e.g. nutrition science. Whether the scientific evidence is new or not is immaterial to the fact, since new scientific evidence is also corruptible.

maxdancona wrote:
Real science is peer reviewed, independent and reproducible. There is quite a bit of real science if you look for it. Some of it contradicts your political ideology. There is bad science too... it is a skill to distinguish it. But if you label any science that contradicts your ideology as "fraudulent", then you are destroying the value of science to discover objective fact.

Bad science too, is peer reviewed, independent and reproducible, e.g. that of D. Mark Hegsted, Fredrick J. and Robert McGandy. Political ideology is irrelevant to this fact.

maxdancona wrote:
Olivier has a good point. Yes, real science needs to be independent of the influence of big money. But the facts are the facts in real science, whether or not big money is on their side or not. The implication in this thread is that if Monsanto wants a scientific result... that automatically settles the question that the result is fraudulent. Of course this is ridiculous.

Up until the revelation of the corruption of the nutrition science referred to in the article I cited, that science was considered "good." There is nothing implicit about this thread other than the staw man argument you put up to flail against in your crusade against political ideology. What this thread is is an outright indictment of the nutrition science that has been thoroughly corrupted by industry interests.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 01:30 pm
@Olivier5,
You forgot to mention Coca Cola.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 01:52 pm
@InfraBlue,
Let's be honest here about what is happening here. You have a set of things that you believe are true. Scientists have said that these things are not true. Instead of changing your beliefs and accepting the facts, you are attacking the scientists.

You have a case of malfeasance that happened from two scientists 50 years ago. I am sure you can find more cases too, that isn't the point.

For you to say that an entire field of science is "corrupted" is ridiculous. That isn't how science works. There are a whole bunch of scientists working, experimenting, publishing. Some of them receive industry funds, some of them don't. There is a body of work in nutrition science (as there is in any science). The papers get published, peer reviewed, referenced and digested. The claim that a small group of people can corrupt scientific institutions is a convenient way to ignore science, but it isn't rational.

If you believe an entire field of science has been "corrupted", then how to form your beliefs? You have no evidence, you have no research, you just believe whatever you want to believe. I suppose that is the whole point.

Nutrition policy should be evidence based. Individual scientists who act poorly should be rejected, called out and their work should be rejected. But to reject an entire field of science is not rational.

There has been quite a bit of good scientific work on nutrition done in the US and elsewhere. I am sorry if the actual scientific facts don't match your personal beliefs, but that is often the case when you look at facts.

You have found a convenient way to reject all facts (ignoring all of the good and basing everything on a few examples). You are just rejecting bad nutrition science, you are rejecting all nutrition science.


cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 01:55 pm
@InfraBlue,
Coke, like many soft drinks has, 39 grams of sugar. When I was in the USAF in the late 1950s, I used to drink several bottles of coke with peanuts. It seems most soft drinks today has similar amounts of sugar in them.
As I aged, I got concerned about too much sugar and salt, so I stopped drinking coke. Once in a great while, I'll have a root beer. It has the same amount of sugar.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 02:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I'm just kidding. Smile Trying to illustrate a point ad absurdum.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 04:08 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Let's be honest here about what is happening here. You have a set of things that you believe are true. Scientists have said that these things are not true. Instead of changing your beliefs and accepting the facts, you are attacking the scientists.

Before I go on, what, exactly is this set of things that you say that I believe to be true, that scientists have said are not true? You seem to be setting up a red herring what with your lack of specifics and your penchant for flailing at straw men.

maxdancona wrote:
You have a case of malfeasance that happened from two scientists 50 years ago. I am sure you can find more cases too, that isn't the point.

Institutional policies dating back 50 years were based on the malfeasance of these three scientists. I agree that there are probably more cases as well, and institutional policies have been based on these also.

maxdancona wrote:
For you to say that an entire field of science is "corrupted" is ridiculous. That isn't how science works. There are a whole bunch of scientists working, experimenting, publishing. Some of them receive industry funds, some of them don't. There is a body of work in nutrition science (as there is in any science). The papers get published, peer reviewed, referenced and digested. The claim that a small group of people can corrupt scientific institutions is a convenient way to ignore science, but it isn't rational.

"Ignoring science" is not the point as well.

The point is that groups of people have corrupted scientific institutions which calls into question the science of these particular institutions, not to ignore science in general but to take the science of these specific scientific institutions that have been corrupted with a great deal of skepticism. The whole bunch of scientists working, experimenting, and publishing are affected by the malfeasance of the corrupt scientists working, experimenting, and publishing among the legitimate scientists and their science is invariably tainted.

maxdacona wrote:
If you believe an entire field of science has been "corrupted", then how to form your beliefs? You have no evidence, you have no research, you just believe whatever you want to believe. I suppose that is the whole point.

One takes it with a grain of salt.

maxdacona wrote:
Nutrition policy should be evidence based. Individual scientists who act poorly should be rejected, called out and their work should be rejected. But to reject an entire field of science is not rational.

When it is intrinsically tainted by fraudulent science, then it should be regarded with extreme caution.

maxdacona wrote:
There has been quite a bit of good scientific work on nutrition done in the US and elsewhere. I am sorry if the actual scientific facts don't match your personal beliefs, but that is often the case when you look at facts.

Personal beliefs are irrelevant. I'm sure there is good scientific work on nutrition. What are these "actual scientific facts?" Who's to distinguish them and the "good scientific work on nutrition" from the bad? You? Your belief looks a lot like religious faith, but like I said, that is irrelevant.

maxdacona wrote:
You have found a convenient way to reject all facts (ignoring all of the good and basing everything on a few examples). You are just rejecting bad nutrition science, you are rejecting all nutrition science.

Wrong. I am not rejecting all facts. I'm questioning what, exactly, the facts are. I am not rejecting all nutrition science. I'm questioning its validity in light of its ingrained corruption.
InfraBlue
 
  0  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 04:09 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

I'm just kidding. Smile Trying to illustrate a point ad absurdum.

Now, mention the Nazis, again.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 05:23 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
Institutional policies dating back 50 years were based on the malfeasance of these three scientists.


Here is a question for you IfraBlue: before writing this... did you bother to even look at the "institutional policies" dating back 50 years? You are making a claim, I don't think you have any real facts to back it up (other than an anecdote). You have a narrative and I think you are simply making stuff up to fit the narrative without even bothering with the facts. Honestly... did you even check?

You are alleged "widespread corruption" based on one story. Looking at the facts, it sem like the whole fruits and vegetable lobby got to them more than the sugar lobby did,

The dietary recommendations have suggested reducing consumption of processed sugar for at least 40 years. Please explain how this fits with your conspiracy theory.



For example, the dietary recommendations from 1977 (40 years ago) were as follows.

- Increase consumption of complex carbohydrates and “naturally occurring sugars;”and
- Reduce consumption of refined and processed sugars, total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and
sodium.
- Increase consumption of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains;
- Decrease consumption of:
o refined and processed sugars and foods high in such sugars;
o foods high in total fat and animal fat, and partially replace saturated fats with
polyunsaturated fats;
o eggs, butterfat, and other high-cholesterol foods;
o salt and foods high in salt; and

• Choose low-fat and non-fat dairy products instead of high-fat dairy products (except for
young children).
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 05:36 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
Personal beliefs are irrelevant. I'm sure there is good scientific work on nutrition. What are these "actual scientific facts?" Who's to distinguish them and the "good scientific work on nutrition" from the bad?


The way you distinguish good science from bad science in nutrition is the same way you distinguish good science from bad when it comes to evolution, or climate change or any other scientific issue.

We have scientific institutions that work very well and a scientific process that is deliberate, transparent, accountable and with a very few exceptions has proven quite successful. To prove your point you have come up with one example of two scientists from 50 years ago. That should tell you something. Our scientific process has safeguards that are pretty damn good (not perfect, but perfect enough that what happened 50 years ago is still exceptional).

Look at what has happened the past 50 years. We have literally cut the rate of death by heart disease in two. If you are over the age of 50, you should be very happy about that.

Here is the real problem...

I am going to assume that you trust science when it comes to global climate change. Why?

The same scientific process, and peer review apply to nutrition science that apply to climate science. It is the same system, the same accountability and the same safeguards are in place.

The fact that anyone would deny nutrition science and accept climate science says more about them then it does about the science.

If you allow yourself to deny science (whatever excuses you can find from 50 years ago notwithstanding), then science just becomes another tool of political propaganda.
camlok
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 08:44 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
The same scientific process, and peer review apply to nutrition science that apply to climate science. It is the same system, the same accountability and the same safeguards are in place.


Max, the science denier, illustrates beautifully, his stunning hypocrisy.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  3  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2017 03:13 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:

I'm just kidding. Smile Trying to illustrate a point ad absurdum.

Now, mention the Nazis, again.

Are you getting the point, though, or are you not?

One bad apple in a crate of apples is no good reason to throw the whole crate. No science is perfect or pure. Calling a whole science fraudulent just because some scientists are fraudulent, is to help obscurantism. It's like hoping to get blind because one has seen something ugly once.
camlok
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2017 11:10 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier: One bad apple in a crate of apples is no good reason to throw OUT the whole crate.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2017 11:11 am
@Olivier5,
You shouldn't pretend that science is important to you, Olivier, when you are a science denier, an anti-truther.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2017 01:11 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Here is a question for you IfraBlue: before writing this... did you bother to even look at the "institutional policies" dating back 50 years? You are making a claim, I don't think you have any real facts to back it up (other than an anecdote). You have a narrative and I think you are simply making stuff up to fit the narrative without even bothering with the facts. Honestly... did you even check?

You are alleged "widespread corruption" based on one story. Looking at the facts, it sem like the whole fruits and vegetable lobby got to them more than the sugar lobby did,

I don't allege "widespread corruption"--your straw man is showing--I allege, as you do, that there are more cases of malfeasance than the one I've cited, e.g. Coca Cola's tainting of nutrition science, and there's reports of the intrinsic involvement of industry intrests in nutrition science, like this one.

maxdancona wrote:
The dietary recommendations have suggested reducing consumption of processed sugar for at least 40 years. Please explain how this fits with your conspiracy theory.

For example, the dietary recommendations from 1977 (40 years ago) were as follows.

- Increase consumption of complex carbohydrates and “naturally occurring sugars;”and
- Reduce consumption of refined and processed sugars, total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and
sodium.
- Increase consumption of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains;
- Decrease consumption of:
o refined and processed sugars and foods high in such sugars;
o foods high in total fat and animal fat, and partially replace saturated fats with
polyunsaturated fats;
o eggs, butterfat, and other high-cholesterol foods;
o salt and foods high in salt; and

• Choose low-fat and non-fat dairy products instead of high-fat dairy products (except for
young children).


There's nothing conspiratorial about my skepticism of institutions that are intrinsically tied to industry concerns. Those are merely the facts.

Many of these recommendations from 40 years ago, e.g. increased use of "naturally occurring sugars," decreased consumption of saturated fats, salt, high-cholesterol foods, etc, are based on studies that have been contradicted or rendered inconclusive by other studies, like the ones I've already cited. This inconsistency calls into question the soundness of the previous studies as well as the soundness of the contradictory studies themselves.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2017 01:16 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
The way you distinguish good science from bad science in nutrition is the same way you distinguish good science from bad when it comes to evolution, or climate change or any other scientific issue.

We have scientific institutions that work very well and a scientific process that is deliberate, transparent, accountable and with a very few exceptions has proven quite successful. To prove your point you have come up with one example of two scientists from 50 years ago. That should tell you something. Our scientific process has safeguards that are pretty damn good (not perfect, but perfect enough that what happened 50 years ago is still exceptional).

You also agree that there are other cases of malfeasance to add to the ones I've cited. Try putting aside your religious convictions and looking them up.

maxdancona wrote:
Look at what has happened the past 50 years. We have literally cut the rate of death by heart disease in two. If you are over the age of 50, you should be very happy about that.

It's absolutely wonderful that the rate of death by heart disease has been cut in two over the past 50 years. One factor you fail to mention in this statistic is the prevalence of medical procedures used to prevent these deaths especially seeing as how the majority of adult Americans are overweight or obese.

maxdancona wrote:
Here is the real problem...

I am going to assume that you trust science when it comes to global climate change. Why?

The same scientific process, and peer review apply to nutrition science that apply to climate science. It is the same system, the same accountability and the same safeguards are in place.

The fact that anyone would deny nutrition science and accept climate science says more about them then it does about the science.

Sure, the same scientific process, and peer review apply to nutrition science that apply to climate science, but like I've already pointed out, I haven't come across reports of malfeasance in regard to climate science, or industry interests tainting the scientific process involved in climate science.

Quote:
If you allow yourself to deny science (whatever excuses you can find from 50 years ago notwithstanding), then science just becomes another tool of political propaganda.

That's a nice propagandistic declaration against your science denial straw man. Keep the faith max! May science bless you!
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2017 01:17 pm
@Olivier5,
Oliver5 wrote:
Are you getting the point, though, or are you not?

One bad apple in a crate of apples is no good reason to throw the whole crate. No science is perfect or pure. Calling a whole science fraudulent just because some scientists are fraudulent, is to help obscurantism. It's like hoping to get blind because one has seen something ugly once.

Your analogies are simply unapt. Rather than the bad apple cliché, it's more like botulism infecting the apple sauce. Also, one is not hoping to get blind. One's vision is clouded by the cataract that is scientific malfeasance.

Get it?
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2017 01:28 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

I'm just kidding. Smile Trying to illustrate a point ad absurdum.

Your reductio ad absurdum attempts aren't logical.
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2017 03:29 pm
@InfraBlue,
Olivier is the dictionary definition of illogical.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2017 03:35 pm
@InfraBlue,
Which Scientific institutions do you trust, InfraBlue... Do you trust NASA, NIST, NIH?

Science is only valuable when it changes your mind. If you live in a way that is fact based, at some times these facts will contradict your perspective on an issue or your political beliefs (I know this will make Camlok burst a vein, but I am going to keep ignoring her and suggest that others do too since she hijacks pretty much every thread with her 9/11 nonsense).

I am proud of the fact that I can name instances were evidence has changed my mind.

So, how about you, InfraBlue... Are there any institutions you would trust enough to allow them to challenge your personal bias; either in nutrition, or in science in general? It seems to me that if you don't trust any scientific institutions on a given topic (nutrition or any other topic), then all you have left is your own personal biases.




camlok
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2017 03:47 pm
@maxdancona,
It's not hijacking a thread to point out that you are a stunning hypocrite, not to mention a liar, Max. How would you know you and your stunning hypocrisy/anti-science ways are being discussed and why would you think to mention it.

"ignore", yet another in a long line of Max lies!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/26/2024 at 12:52:06