<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" > <channel> <title> Comments on: Are the New England Journal of Medicine and Harvard T.C. Chan School of Public Health Dishonest or Just Incompetent? </title> <atom:link href="https://junkscience.com/2017/07/are-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine-and-harvard-t-c-chan-school-of-public-health-dishonest-or-just-incompetent/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /> <link>https://junkscience.com/2017/07/are-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine-and-harvard-t-c-chan-school-of-public-health-dishonest-or-just-incompetent/</link> <description>All the junk that’s fit to debunk.</description> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2017 20:18:28 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod> hourly </sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency> 1 </sy:updateFrequency> <generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.2</generator> <item> <title> By: chuck </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2017/07/are-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine-and-harvard-t-c-chan-school-of-public-health-dishonest-or-just-incompetent/#comment-8317976315264122355</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[chuck]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2017 20:18:28 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=92145#comment-8317976315264122355</guid> <description><![CDATA[so I need to eat crappy tasting "good" food and stop breathing to live longer. Okay. No.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>so I need to eat crappy tasting “good” food and stop breathing to live longer. Okay. No.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Carl </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2017/07/are-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine-and-harvard-t-c-chan-school-of-public-health-dishonest-or-just-incompetent/#comment-8317976315264122279</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Carl]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2017 22:26:07 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=92145#comment-8317976315264122279</guid> <description><![CDATA[Perhaps a "healthy diet" is defined by what an "unhealthy diet" is: - Arsenic - Cyanide - High concentration HCl - Plutonium]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perhaps a “healthy diet” is defined by what an “unhealthy diet” is:</p> <p>– Arsenic<br /> – Cyanide<br /> – High concentration HCl<br /> – Plutonium</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Yaakov Haimovich </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2017/07/are-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine-and-harvard-t-c-chan-school-of-public-health-dishonest-or-just-incompetent/#comment-8317976315264122223</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Yaakov Haimovich]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 16 Jul 2017 14:37:30 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=92145#comment-8317976315264122223</guid> <description><![CDATA[Dishonest.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dishonest.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Nikhil Desai </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2017/07/are-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine-and-harvard-t-c-chan-school-of-public-health-dishonest-or-just-incompetent/#comment-8317976315264122216</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Nikhil Desai]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2017 12:16:50 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=92145#comment-8317976315264122216</guid> <description><![CDATA[The basic problem here is simply that "premature mortality" is not the same as "mortality". Mortality is individual and has "cause(s) of death", which is always a proximate link to one or more events or disease. Premature mortality is a population attribute, aggregated for a cause - as reported or as concocted - and is in turn attributed (pardon the irony) to "risk factors". Read the Global Burden of Disease reports. They apply the power of algorithms and computing to make up causes of death, then distribute the blame to risk factors. There is NO claim that "risk factors" are causes. Attributability is not causality, and attributable is not avoidable. EPA and public health ideologues abuse language in order to create hysteria. That no PM2.5 is "safe", while the question is, what is safe enough for risk of a particular disease profile, given that there are many sources of PM2.5?]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The basic problem here is simply that “premature mortality” is not the same as “mortality”. Mortality is individual and has “cause(s) of death”, which is always a proximate link to one or more events or disease. Premature mortality is a population attribute, aggregated for a cause – as reported or as concocted – and is in turn attributed (pardon the irony) to “risk factors”. </p> <p>Read the Global Burden of Disease reports. They apply the power of algorithms and computing to make up causes of death, then distribute the blame to risk factors. There is NO claim that “risk factors” are causes. </p> <p>Attributability is not causality, and attributable is not avoidable. EPA and public health ideologues abuse language in order to create hysteria. That no PM2.5 is “safe”, while the question is, what is safe enough for risk of a particular disease profile, given that there are many sources of PM2.5?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Bill </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2017/07/are-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine-and-harvard-t-c-chan-school-of-public-health-dishonest-or-just-incompetent/#comment-8317976315264122206</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Bill]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2017 01:37:11 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=92145#comment-8317976315264122206</guid> <description><![CDATA[They simply adhere to the Bill Nye definition of science]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>They simply adhere to the Bill Nye definition of science</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: John Minich </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2017/07/are-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine-and-harvard-t-c-chan-school-of-public-health-dishonest-or-just-incompetent/#comment-8317976315264122191</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[John Minich]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2017 02:35:59 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=92145#comment-8317976315264122191</guid> <description><![CDATA[I guess "what-we-say" is more important than " these-are-the-facts". How about, this is the null hypothesis, this is our experiment/test design, these are our test samples and subsets and their sizes, how we selected them, characteristics of each set and subset and of individuals within each, and so on. The information should allow anyone and any group to follow all steps and assumptions and be able cross check everything and look for repeatability. I wonder how many "scientists" versus scientists do that?]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess “what-we-say” is more important than ” these-are-the-facts”. How about, this is the null hypothesis, this is our experiment/test design, these are our test samples and subsets and their sizes, how we selected them, characteristics of each set and subset and of individuals within each, and so on. The information should allow anyone and any group to follow all steps and assumptions and be able cross check everything and look for repeatability. I wonder how many “scientists” versus scientists do that?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: claudia roulier </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2017/07/are-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine-and-harvard-t-c-chan-school-of-public-health-dishonest-or-just-incompetent/#comment-8317976315264122187</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[claudia roulier]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2017 01:14:36 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=92145#comment-8317976315264122187</guid> <description><![CDATA[do they not know how lame that sounds......]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>do they not know how lame that sounds……</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Rog. L </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2017/07/are-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine-and-harvard-t-c-chan-school-of-public-health-dishonest-or-just-incompetent/#comment-8317976315264122186</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Rog. L]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2017 01:09:51 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=92145#comment-8317976315264122186</guid> <description><![CDATA[We can only hope, and be thankful in anticipation, that the general public is forever exposed only to such life-shortening factors as campfire fumes and hot dogs... Should the majority ever have their attention focused on trivial childish hypersubjective junkscience 'research' on such subjects as 'air quality', 'global temperature', 'substandard diet', 'pedagogy' etc., mean life-expectancy will surely plummet although the death-rate will, mercifully, never drop below 100.0000%]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We can only hope, and be thankful in anticipation, that the general public is forever exposed only to such life-shortening factors as campfire fumes and hot dogs…<br /> Should the majority ever have their attention focused on trivial childish hypersubjective junkscience ‘research’ on such subjects as ‘air quality’, ‘global temperature’, ‘substandard diet’, ‘pedagogy’ etc., mean life-expectancy will surely plummet although the death-rate will, mercifully, never drop below 100.0000%</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: JF </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2017/07/are-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine-and-harvard-t-c-chan-school-of-public-health-dishonest-or-just-incompetent/#comment-8317976315264122181</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[JF]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jul 2017 22:09:35 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=92145#comment-8317976315264122181</guid> <description><![CDATA["Among those who maintained higher rather than lower scores according to any of the three healthy diet patterns for 12 years, there was a 9%-14% reduction in mortality from any cause. Among those who had relatively unhealthy diets at the beginning of the study but whose diet scores improved the most, the risk of death in subsequent years was also significantly reduced." BASED ON WHAT?]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“Among those who maintained higher rather than lower scores according to any of the three healthy diet patterns for 12 years, there was a 9%-14% reduction in mortality from any cause. Among those who had relatively unhealthy diets at the beginning of the study but whose diet scores improved the most, the risk of death in subsequent years was also significantly reduced.”<br /> BASED ON WHAT?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Richard Feinman </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2017/07/are-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine-and-harvard-t-c-chan-school-of-public-health-dishonest-or-just-incompetent/#comment-8317976315264122180</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Richard Feinman]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jul 2017 21:45:25 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=92145#comment-8317976315264122180</guid> <description><![CDATA["Healthy" is a value judgement. If you describe a diet as "healthy "the research is an infomercial. Everybody, including the Harvard blog, says that reporting relative risk is misleading. This is not good science. You can decide the motivation.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“Healthy” is a value judgement. If you describe a diet as “healthy “the research is an infomercial. Everybody, including the Harvard blog, says that reporting relative risk is misleading. This is not good science. You can decide the motivation.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>