11 thoughts on “A Study on Fats That Doesn’t Fit the Story Line”

  1. Soooooooo, do you think that the “consensus” about AGW–er–CC may be a product of “publication bias”? Hmm?

  2. I found 12 studies testing in randomized trials 52 claims that came from observational studies. NONE of the claims replicated in the expected direction. In addition to publication bias, there is data dredging (test a lot of questions and by chance something will be statistically significant) and multiple modeling (fiddle with the statistical model tilting things in the direction of expectation). Simple rule: do not trust any claim coming from an observational study.

  3. Stan! Now you’ve just negated the entire fields of sociology and social psychology. Oh, and critical race theory. That was quite a shot.

  4. The Minnesota study established that there is a correlation between dietary fats and cholesterol. The body makes its own cholesterol FROM fats. What the study failed to establish is the basic assumption that is used to connect cholesterol and health. This was probably due to a misinterpretation of the observation that the arterial deposits that ‘clog’ arteries (and are associated positively with strokes and heart disease) are composed largely of cholesterol compounds.
    The reason that these cholesterol-laden deposits exist is because there is an immune mechanism that reacts to small foreign objects that the immune cells cannot kill and digest are isolated by coating them with fats and cholesterol. The cholesterol itself is not a health problem. The cholesterol is the *defense* against the problem – often an infection/infestation by microbes such as yeast or fungi.

  5. The author sadly got taken in by Mozaffarian when he mentioned that his 2010 meta-analyses showed the opposite of all the other studies. It’s easy when all of the studies you use are your own. Mozaffarian has been the lone cheerleader for his “healthy fats” Mediterranean diet for years.

  6. It may eventually be realized that in the last 65 years, millions of people have died as a result of badly conceived nutritional guidelines and warnings from their government, their doctor, their schools, their parents and most of all their nutritionist. The death toll would make Stalin blush. They have convinced people that the conerstone of a “healthy” diet is based on carbohydrates. No one has ever proven these are important, much less essential, there is no disease process associated with a diet in which carbohydrates are completely absent. All essential minerals, vitamins, amino acids, protiens, fat, have diseases associated with low levels or absence, yet our cornerstone nutrient, can be entirely absent from your diet with no negative results. In the 50’s for some bizarre reason, people started looking to government to help them decide what to eat, since then, the incidence of obesity, heart disease and diabetes has skyrocketed.

  7. Anymore, when I see the word “study” in a headline, it automatically raises a huge red flag.

  8. You might like to go to “The Week” April 18th and read “Big Science is Broken” by Pascal Gobry.

  9. The Keys study was a fraud with Keys purposely leaving out countries where his hypothesis didn’t fit, in his groundbreaking study.

    But one non-fraudulent error was left out in the discussion above. These studies are all done to a 95% degree of confidence. That means for every 20 studies on average where a correlation should not exist, one will show false positive. All the studies showing nothing will get dumped but the false positive will get published, because something happened. Of course when this studies experiments are tested again, most likely the results will fail.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.