Free The Animal

Yep, and who does fraudulent science? Fraudulent researchers (grant whores). And what are fraudulent researchers? They’re frauds.
Well, as I try to finish up a post on saturated fat and one particular fraud from abroad, I just came across an interview by the great Uffe Ravnskov, whom I’ve mentioned in blogs a few times, at least. [...]

[Read more →]

I’ll bet some of you already know where I’m going. There’s so much nonsense out there virtually every day that it would be tough for you not to know.
So, alright, I’ve seen a barrage of emails and other communique over the last couple of days. What should I begin with, how saturated fat stimulates hunger [...]

[Read more →]

Before I begin, please take the 2 minutes and 27 seconds necessary to watch this ABC news report. I’ll get back to that in a bit; but first, I’m sure you heard the news: Eating Animal Fat May Lead to Pancreatic Cancer!!! Oh nos! Yea, already a half dozen emails and a Facebook message or two. But guess what? This is the same study that was More Stupid Nonsense by Rashmi Sinha, PhD; Amanda J. Cross, PhD; Barry I. Graubard, PhD; Michael F. Leitzmann, MD, DrPH; and Arthur Schatzkin, MD, DrPH, then, and it’s simply a lot more accumulated stupid nonsense now. The bottom line: the aforementioned cretins are frauds and liars. What other conclusion can you reach? I’d love to deconstruct this for you, but, Tom Naughton of Fat Head fame has already done a more than adequate job of exposing the aforementioned frauds and liars. And what an amazing study this has turned out to be. So far it has indicated that being overweight in middle age will kill you, a lack of physical activity can increase your odds of breast cancer, red meat will give you colon cancer, alcohol can lead to pancreatic cancer and fruits and…

[Read more →]

The data is in: Now quick, quick, and go see the shocking rest. (Note: Ancel Keys was an utter fraud.) And later: I hope everyone gets the tongue-in-cheek about this post…

[Read more →]

Here represents a core fundamental of scientific method. Suppose you lived in Europe any time during the last few hundred years and were fortunate enough to observe the lovely swan in action. Suppose further that you noticed that every single one was white. How about you observed a million of them over time? Could you say, definitively, that “all swans are white?” No. You. Can’t. You could hypothesize, which, if you’re a scientific researcher, would naturally involve attempting to find swans that aren’t white. Grasp that: you look for swans that are not white, because, it doesn’t matter if you find 10 billion white swans, you still can’t say definitively that all are white universally, or even globally, unless every nook and cranny of the Earth has been checked for non-white swans. OK, but so what? Could we work with and find use in hypotheses that may not be substantiated universally, but are true in a limited context? Sure. It’s done all the time, and it’s fine, so long as it’s done right. But this isn’t how politicized, government, and big-industry “science” is done, now — especially in areas like diet, medicine, environment (yea, all you “health-nut” greens: the bad…

[Read more →]