Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNewGirl
Anything, and I mean ANYTHING published in medical research should be regarded with a very very critical eye. Good seeming, bad seeming or other wise. One should look at other similar articals published by the journal/publisher. Do they suport the same opinion as the one you're reading? Do they present contrasting information? Who funded this research? Who is this researcher? What else have they done? Who do they work for? What kind of sample size did they use? Is this real research utilizing a sizable control group? Or is this a study of corralational relationships?
|
Hence the name "peer-reviewed" journals. Scholarly journals are always peer-reviewed.
Not sure what you're trying to get at here, because I haven't looked at the medical journals at all. I'll leave that to the experts at Harvard and the Department of Health. They sift through the research, analyze it, and form conclusions. In this case, nearly all major universities and public health organizations argue that saturated fats should be eaten in moderation. Are you suggesting that these organizations are incapable of interpreting and critically analyzing scholarly journals?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNewGirl
I note here MOST research involved in studying factors associated with cancer and obesity done by the various foundations you've listed are corralational. That means they are NOT true experiments and fundimentally flawed in their conclusion. They can NOT say X causes obesity, at best they can say 'some people who consume X tend to also be fat'.
|
If the research was so flaky, why is it that the majority of researchers and experts continue to maintain this opinion? Because they're all being bribed by pharmaceutical companies. Get real. Not only do the drug companies not have the resources to out-bribe all other parties with contrary vested interests, it simply wouldn't be a good use of their money. Even if everyone starting limiting saturated fats, the pharmaceutical companies will still have plenty of customers. They're better off spending their time developing and patenting drugs, not running around trying to bribe research institutions and deceive the general public in order to fund a small segment of their business. That's way beyond logical or rational.
Personally I don't say swollow Taubes thoughtlessly. Personally I think everyone should be as critical about the knowledge they consume as the food they eat, if not more so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNewGirl
There are plenty, PLENTY of researchers that have already asserted that the way we treat food and regard nutrition is wrong. Many. But they don't have big bucks behind them.
|
How do they not have the "big bucks" behind them? The Department of Health, health insurance companies, and mainstream food processing firms would all stand to be negatively impacted by providing misinformation to the public. I understand and agree that critical thinking and analysis is crucial when you're looking at research, but there still isn't any logic to your research conspiracy theories.