“Fraudulent Science”

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. Here’s an excerpt dealing with the current state of the diet-sanity revolution in Sweden.

Do you think mainstream medicine will ever relinquish its view that elevated cholesterol causes heart disease and that statins are the magic bullet?

I hope so. The failures of the most recent statin trials has been commented by several journalists in the major US newspapers. In Sweden a revolution is going on. Here, a general practitioner treated her own obesity successfully by eating a low-carbohydrate diet with a high content of animal fat. When she advised her obese and diabetic patients to do the same, she was reported to the National Board of Health and Welfare for malpractice. After a two-year-long investigation she was acquitted, as her treatment was considered to be in accord with scientific evidence. At the same time, the Board dismissed two experts, who had been appointed for updating the dietary recommendations for diabetics, because it came up that they were sponsored by the food industry. Instead the Board has asked independent researchers to review the scientific literature.

The subject has gained general attention due to a number of radio and television shows, where critical experts including myself have discussed the issue with representatives of the official view. Most important, thousands of patients have experienced themselves that by doing the opposite as recommended by the current guidelines they have regained their health. The effect has been that the sales of butter, cream and fat milk are increasing in Sweden after many years of decline, and a recent poll showed that a majority of Swedish people today think that the best way of losing weight is by a low-carbohydrate, fat-rich diet.

Further progress was achieved this spring. Several times colleagues of mine and also myself have asked the Swedish Food Administration for the scientific basis of their warnings against saturated fat. We have been met with the argument that there are thousands of such studies, or by referrals to the WHO guidelines or the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations. As the main argument in the latter two is that saturated fat raises cholesterol we were not satisfied with their answer and finally the Food Administration published a list with 72 studies that they claimed were in support of their view on saturated fat and twelve that were not.

We scrutinized the lists and found that only two of the 72 studies supported their standpoint; eleven studies did not concern saturated fat at all, and the unsupportive list was incomplete, to put it mildly. We published a short report with our comments to these lists in the Swedish medical journal Dagens Medicin. A response from the Food Administration appeared seven weeks later in which they pointed out that their recommendations were directed to healthy people, not to patients. They maintained that they were based on solid scientific evidence without mentioning anything about saturated fat and without answering our critical comments.

But this is not all. Earlier this year Sachdeva et al reported that the mean cholesterol in 137,000 patients with acute myocardial infarction was lower than normal. As usual, the authors didn’t understand their own findings, but concluded that cholesterol should be lowered even more. A few months later Al-Mallah et al. came up with the same result and conclusion, although they also reported that three years later, mortality was twice as high among those who had been admitted with the lowest cholesterol.

These results created a fierce debate in one of the major Swedish newspapers. It was opened by ninety-one-year old Lars Werkö, the ‘Grand Old Man’ in Swedish medical science, retired professor in internal medicine and former head of The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care, together with Tore Scherstén, retired professor in surgery and former secretary of the Swedish Medical Research Council. “Now it is time to sack the cholesterol hypothesis and to investigate the reason of this scientific breakdown” they wrote. They also criticized American researchers in AHA and NHLBI and their followers for sloppy and fraudulent science.

They were of course attacked by two professors and representatives of the current view, but none of them came up with any substantial evidence, only by personalities.

[emphasis added]

"Only by personalities." Yep, you’ll get that a lot: argumentum ad verecundium. In this context, it means they have nothing but the say-so of the sorts of frauds I identified right at the beginning.

Alright, here you go with the whole interview that Peter at Hyperlipid put up on his archive site.

Oh, hey, want to read some silly bits and more argumentum ad verecundium from another fraud? How about T. Colin Campbell, author of the ridiculous The China Study. No, haven’t read it. Don’t need to. Chris Masterjohn:

What is most shocking about the China Study is not what it found, but the contrast between Campbell’s representation of its findings in The China Study, and the data contained within the original monograph. Campbell summarizes the 8,000 statistically significant correlations found in the China Study in the following statement: "people who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease."26 He also claims that, although it is "somewhat difficult" to "show that animal-based food intake relates to overall cancer rates," that nevertheless, "animal protein intake was convincingly associated in the China Study with the prevalence of cancer in families."27

But the actual data from the original publication paints a different picture. Figure 1 shows selected correlations between macronutrients and cancer mortality. Most of them are not statistically significant, which means that the probability the correlation is due to chance is greater than five percent. It is interesting to see, however, the general picture that emerges. Sugar, soluble carbohydrates, and fiber all have correlations with cancer mortality about seven times the magnitude of that of animal protein, and total fat and fat as a percentage of calories were both negatively correlated with cancer mortality. The only statistically significant association between intake of a macronutrient and cancer mortality was a large protective effect of total oil and fat intake as measured on the questionnaire. As an interesting aside, there was a highly significant negative correlation between cancer mortality and home-made cigarettes!

At any rate, guess who popped up over at the Amazon Low-Carb discussion forum? He hasn’t posted any of his stupid drivel in a couple of days, so maybe his tail is tucked. It’s interesting he showed up there, though. Perhaps the tide really is turning and some of these assholes see the writing on the wall and are trying to figure their next angle (or, how best to lie their way past having their credibility smashed, as justice demands).

Too many frauds, too little time.

Since Covid killed my Cabo San Lucas vacation-rental business in 2021, this is my day job. I can't do it without you. Memberships are $10 monthly, $20 quarterly, or $65 annually. Two premium coffees per month. Every membership helps finance this work I do, and if you like what I do, please chip in. No grandiose pitches.


  1. Patrik on November 5, 2009 at 16:54

    How. Dare. You. Question. The High Priests. Er….I mean…”scientists”.

  2. Chris on November 5, 2009 at 17:02

    There aren’t any Grant Whores in the climate science field are there? Nah….can’t be….

  3. Patrik on November 5, 2009 at 18:25


    In the Gaia religion? Er, I mean “Climate Science”…nah…..


    “In the days of the Royal Society, scientists were hobbyists, pursuing their own whims, pushed to Truth by group norms and the standards of their peers. There was plenty of nonsense then, too (Isaac Newton was an Alchemist) but a small group of individuals, with modest means, got a lot of Science done.

    Fast forward to 2009, where science is now big non-business. The nexus between Federal Agencies and science is tight, and scientists produce the results they are paid to produce. Both “Good Calories, Bad Calories” and this expose from Steve McIntyre fit exactly with my own experience in the most prestigeous laboratories on the planet. Don’t believe anything you read in the NYTimes.”

  4. Bryce on November 5, 2009 at 18:31

    Campbell continually amazes me. He finds evidence that just one of the proteins in milk (casein) precipitates cancer when consumed at absurdly large doses by rats. He can’t replicate this findings with other proteins from the same milk (whey protein). He then deduces that all animal proteins are dangerous, based on this pathetically lacking association.

    Insanity. Pure and simple.

    Richard, file this post under “No quarter for fools.” Any time I hear junk science proffered by Eloi or grant whores, I think ‘Man Richard would have a field day . . .’

  5. Stan (Heretic) on November 5, 2009 at 19:46

    Fraudulent science, or destruction of true science by sinecure-seekers is a much bigger problem than most realize, and a massive waste of money. I have witnessed as a scientist a few cases, for example squashing of low-energy nuclear reaction (cold fusion) by a committees of “experts” in 1989 who refused to considered any positive experimental evidence because they already knew that it is (supposedly) not possible. I worked on a space mission project, Phobos2, whose principal investigators ended up withholding the crucial images from Mars that contained some details that were not supposed to be there. There are heresies in every branch of science I ever looked at. There are “forbidden” artifacts buried by archaeologists, there are parts of history that we were never taught or were totally distorted (in Europe) due to nationalism or other reasons. There are environmentalists making political and financial gains out of propagating half-truths about climate plus a multitude of self-appointed uneducated anti-nuclear energy troglodytes.
    Stan (Heretic)

  6. Michael on November 6, 2009 at 00:54

    T. Colin Campbell misses the boat time and time again. It is his sort of approach that essentially kept me out of the world of academia, since his style is not uncommon regardless of the discipline. Better to labor outside or on the fringes of a discipline “Kuhnian” style rather than have to slog through all the silly ideological academic baggage on a daily basis. Of course not everyone agrees with that approach since Chris Masterjohn is currently finishing up his Ph.D and I assume will remain within academia (although I could be wrong).

    I remember reading a proof copy of Chris’s critique of Campbell before it went to print a few years back and thinking to myself, “Chris, you are being far too much of a gentleman.” There were a couple of places where he could have really blasted Campbell but he treated him in a much gentler way than I would have done.

    Amazing Campbell is on the low carb forum. What exactly does he expect to accomplish?

    Nutrition and Physical Regeneration

  7. […] saturated fat epidemiology from a UK reader, Alex Thorne. He was pretty careful in that — unlike science frauds and grant whores — as an honest guy, he anticipated objections and so constructed and graphed the […]

  8. veglib on November 6, 2009 at 17:49

    Ah yes, the low-carb, meat-addicted Weston Price clones. Saturated fat is good for you, huh? Hey, I know a bridge you can buy! Interested? lol

    It’s amazing how you people proliferate (and predictably, diss and despise) Campbell while worshipping your dead hero Atkins, the pseudo-scientist diet faddist who suffered from (remember?): HEART DISEASE. Hello? Anybody paying attention, or are you too busy scarfing fried bacon with cheese chasers?

    Go high-carb vegan! Be thin AND healthy.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 6, 2009 at 18:35

      Praise God!

      We haven’t had fresh meat here in a while.

      More later (and probably not only from me). You’ll have to pardon. Making a hearty soup with a crosscut beef shank as the base. And I’ll have guests….

    • Richard Nikoley on November 7, 2009 at 13:29

      Weston Price, eh? So, are you just a troll, because if you knew anything about this blog you’d know that we’re not shills for WAPF. I don’t think grains & legumes have a proper place in the human diet, soaked, sprouted and/or fermented or not.

      But I suspect all you know about Weston Price is what you’ve read and heard in your vegan echo-chamber. You’re probably not aware that he travelled the wold in the 1920s to seek out indigenous populations that had had little contact with civilization and were still eating their traditional foods, and he also compared them to members of these populations who had moved away into contact with modern foods. The research was meticulously documented in journals and photographs and published in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, which can be accessed here:


      Who did he study? From Wikipedia:

      “Some of the cultures studied include the inhabitants of the Lötschental in Switzerland, the inhabitants of the Isles of Lewis and Harris in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland, the Eskimos of Alaska and Canada, the Native Americans, among the inhabitants of New Caledonia, Fiji, Samoa, the Marquesas Islands, Tahiti, Rarotonga, Nukuʻalofa, Hawaii, the Masai, Kikuyu, Wakamba and Jalou tribes of Kenya, the Muhima of Uganda, the Baitu and Watusi of Rwanda, the Pygmies, and Wanande in the Congo, the Terrakeka, Dinka and Neurs of Sudan, the Aborigines of Australia, the inhabitants of the Torres Strait, the Māori of New Zealand, the Tauhuanocans, Quechua, “Andes Indians”, “Sierra Indians” and “Jungle Indians” of Peru.”

      What did they eat? From a review of the book:

      “Curiously, all native peoples studied made great efforts to obtain seafood, especially fish roe which was consumed so that we will have healthy children. Even mountain dwelling peoples would make semiannual trips to the sea to bring back seaweeds, fish eggs, and dried fish. Shrimp, rich in both cholesterol and vitamin D, was a standard food in many places, from Africa to the Orient.

      “The last major feature of native diets that Price found was that they were rich in fat, especially animal fat. Whether from insects, eggs, fish, game animals, or domesticated herds, primitive peoples knew that they would get sick if they did not consume enough fat. Explorers besides Dr. Price have also found this to be true. For example, anthropologist Vilhjalmur Stefansson, who lived for years among the Innu and Northern Canadian Indians, specifically noted how the Indians would go out of their way to hunt down older male caribou for they carried a 50 pound slab of back fat. When such animals were unavailable and Indians were forced to subsist on rabbits, a very lean animal, diarrhea and hunger would set in after about a week. The human body needs saturated fat to assimilate and utilize proteins and saturated animal fats contain high amounts of the fat soluble vitamins, as well as beneficial fatty acids with antimicrobial properties.

      “Of course, the foods that Price’s subjects ate were natural and unprocessed. Their foods did not contain preservatives, additives, or colorings. They did not contain added sugar (though, when available, natural sweets like honey and maple syrup were eaten in moderation). They did not contain white flour or canned foods. Their milk products were not pasteurized, homogenized, or low fat. The animal and plant foods consumed were raised and grown on pesticide-free soil and were not given growth hormones or antibiotics. In short, these people always ate organic.”

      Conclusions of the research from the Price-Pottenger website:

      – Dental decay is caused primarily by nutritional deficiencies.
      – Although radically different, 14 tribal diets provided almost complete immunity to tooth decay and resistance to disease.
      – The diets contained no refined or devitalized foods.
      – Laboratory analyses revealed that all of these diets were unusually high in protein, vitamins, minerals and especially in fat soluble factors found in animal fats.
      – Contact with civilization, followed by adoption of the “displacing foods of modern commerce,” was disastrous for all groups studied.
      – Rampant dental caries were followed by progressive facial deformities in children born to parents consuming refined and devitalized foods.
      – These changes consisted of narrowed facial structure and dental arches, along with crowded teeth, birth defects and increased susceptibility to infectious and chronic disease.
      – Significantly, when some natives returned to their traditional diets, open cavities ceased progressing and children subsequently conceived and born, once again had perfect dental arches and no tooth decay.
      – If civilized man is to survive, he must incorporate the fundamentals of primitive nutritional wisdom into his modern life-style.

      Based upon his findings, he came back and began curing cavities in his patients nutritionally. See, he found almost no tooth decay in his travels (often less than one cavity per 1,000 teeth or more examined) at a time when tooth decay was 30% in the modern world and even teens were having teeth extracted for dentures.

      Prove it? Yep, you guessed, it. Re-calsifying tooth cavities was published in major medical journals as early as 1924.


      Finally, not all vegetarians are ignorant parrots when it comes to Price.

      Atkins? While I think a low-carb focus has merit, especially for radical weight loss, a whole food focus is more important.


      I do not follow an Atkins diet. As to the controversy surrounding his death, I’ve never been interested. If someone else want’s to argue that, be my guest.

      Saturated fat. I’ll bet you know nothing first hand, that you just parrot conventional “wisdom.”

      I’ll bet you have no idea how healthful were the heftiest saturated fat consuming people on the planet. Bet you don’t even know who they are, or that saturated fat makes up full 50% of their total energy intake.


      More good, devastating stuff.


      Last but not least, I wonder if you’ve been vegan long enough to experience the physical degeneration that eventually comes for most, as written by 20-yr vegan Lierre Keith in the recently published “The Vegetarian Myth.”

      I’ve blogged about it here:


    • Richard Nikoley on November 7, 2009 at 14:11

      I’ve created a new post from my previous comment, along with some additions. Should there be any discussion, let’s move it over there.


  9. Rob on November 6, 2009 at 19:38

    Little by little. You can only hide the truth for so long. Thank God for Dr. Ravnskov. My hero.

  10. Stan (Heretic) on November 7, 2009 at 10:47

    Hi veglib, I am surprized that you have any energy to rant! Not too much sugar perhaps?

  11. Arlo on November 7, 2009 at 15:38

    Too bad veglib probably won’t be back, but even if they were, I doubt they’d take the time to go through Richards links.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 7, 2009 at 15:44

      Can you imagine the links he’d give us. Think there’d be any vegan who travelled the world in the ’20s to document the “healthfulness” of a vegan diet No, ’cause there didn’t exist such a thing.

      Veganism is far newer than frankenoils.

  12. […] was over a week ago that I reported to you that Dr. T. Colin Powell, author of best-selling The China Study was participating in a low-carb […]

  13. Eric on December 21, 2009 at 13:17

    I have been surprised how easily Richard dispatches even the most noisy critics by presenting tons of evidence supporting what he says. Are they just lazy and move on? I doubt all evidence in the world would convince these people.

    • Jason on April 5, 2010 at 09:15

      Not so! It’s because of information like this that I ceased being a vegetarian after 10 long unhealthy years (last 2 of which were spent as a vegan). Keep fighting the good fight and spreading the word. It does make a difference.

  14. Eric on December 21, 2009 at 13:27

    One more thing.

    Thanks for clearing up a nagging question I have had on why the AHA keeps recommending it’s diet which obviously flies in the face of reality. Grant whores and scientists just collecting a paycheck who don’t want to rock the boat with contradictory evidence. Or scientists like Campbell who go in to prove a point and ignore “flawed” evidence because he knows the real truth. Mix in some politics and the old boy network at it’s just like Gary Taubes layed out in his book.

    • Michael on December 23, 2009 at 18:42

      It is normal human behavior across all disciplines. Rarely do people understand the concept of philosophical first principles and therefore are likely to express surprise at how people with vested interests behave. But that is the point, being deeply “vested” in one manner or another can prevent one from seeing the truth of a matter, and it is not always conscious either. Rarely do people adopt a new position based on logic alone. That is why, in my opinion, Richard’s approach of attempting to engage people first before going further is very much on the mark, whether or not you like his style.

      I recently posted about the problem of science which should help explain matters somewhat.

  15. Eric on December 21, 2009 at 13:32

    On a final note, this time for sure.

    What if you dropped into a Vegan website with an armload of studies where they can’t run from you? Do they just ban your from the site or just shout you down?

    • Richard Nikoley on December 21, 2009 at 14:56

      I would not waste my time on something like that. It’s when the vegans and vegetarians come here. Possibly, they are at stage 1 of a change. It’s also good when people like that guy above come around, as now my answer is there for other veggies who come in search of info.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.