Saturated fat and cholesterol vital to health

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

you lost me at Mercola...

Again---these are not Mercola's opinions being expressed in this interview---but rather those of a credentialed medical researcher--a Ph.D. in nutrition science. You people need to stop with the knee-jerk reactions and instead focus on what is actually being said.

^ Our refusal to give Mercola or his associates any credence aren't knee jerk reactions. We have decided to stop listening to people who consistently post nonsense though.

I think the researcher in the interview put his finger on part of the problem of resistance to change in the medical community. It often is not about money among scientists, for example. People who have spent a great deal of their career responding to what they believe is a certain truth, are resistant to change their minds when confronted with evidence that contradicts that position. The pharmaceutical executives, on the other hand, likely operate much more from a profit-motive than the scientists. The bottom line of the corporation is their responsibility and sometimes rules and moral principles get bent in the pursuit of that fat bottom line. Thus the fines that they pay on a regular basis. Now, try to tell me that this is not true.

Please read my answer directly above this nonsense. It still holds true.

No, it does not. Many scientists have cited exactly the same thing as Dr. Masterjohn and the history of science illustrates the prejudice of prevailing opinion against anything new (see, as an example, the resistance of Hungarian surgeons to Joseph Lister's proposition that surgeons should wash their hands between patients). But hey--you are welcome to believe anything you want.

We aren't studying the history of science here. You have some very general notions and are applying them to some very broad conclusions. I have a limited amount of time to spend studying and debating nutrition so I avoid anything having to do with Mercola. Sorry, but reputation matters and his frankly is that he's a whack job.

Agree. If the information is good you ought to be able to find it from a reputable source. If I see the words Big Pharma followed by Mercola, I'm skeptical (to say the least) before I even start reading. It's like if you wanted to present information about the benefits of exercise-- you'd have a lot better luck presenting information from PubMed than you would presenting the same information from Dr. Oz.

SanteMulberry

you lost me at Mercola...

Again---these are not Mercola's opinions being expressed in this interview---but rather those of a credentialed medical researcher--a Ph.D. in nutrition science. You people need to stop with the knee-jerk reactions and instead focus on what is actually being said.

^ Our refusal to give Mercola or his associates any credence aren't knee jerk reactions. We have decided to stop listening to people who consistently post nonsense though.

I think the researcher in the interview put his finger on part of the problem of resistance to change in the medical community. It often is not about money among scientists, for example. People who have spent a great deal of their career responding to what they believe is a certain truth, are resistant to change their minds when confronted with evidence that contradicts that position. The pharmaceutical executives, on the other hand, likely operate much more from a profit-motive than the scientists. The bottom line of the corporation is their responsibility and sometimes rules and moral principles get bent in the pursuit of that fat bottom line. Thus the fines that they pay on a regular basis. Now, try to tell me that this is not true.

Please read my answer directly above this nonsense. It still holds true.

No, it does not. Many scientists have cited exactly the same thing as Dr. Masterjohn and the history of science illustrates the prejudice of prevailing opinion against anything new (see, as an example, the resistance of Hungarian surgeons to Joseph Lister's proposition that surgeons should wash their hands between patients). But hey--you are welcome to believe anything you want.

We aren't studying the history of science here. You have some very general notions and are applying them to some very broad conclusions. I have a limited amount of time to spend studying and debating nutrition so I avoid anything having to do with Mercola. Sorry, but reputation matters and his frankly is that he's a whack job.

Agree. If the information is good you ought to be able to find it from a reputable source. If I see the words Big Pharma followed by Mercola, I'm skeptical (to say the least) before I even start reading. It's like if you wanted to present information about the benefits of exercise-- you'd have a lot better luck presenting information from PubMed than you would presenting the same information from Dr. Oz.

I have always found the TED lectures to be quite enlightening. Here's one dealing with "What doctors don't know about the drugs they prescribe" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RKmxL8VYy0M

Published on Sep 27, 2012

"When a new drug gets tested, the results of the trials should be published for the rest of the medical world -- except much of the time, negative or inconclusive findings go unreported, leaving doctors and researchers in the dark. In this impassioned talk, Ben Goldacre explains why these unreported instances of negative data are especially misleading and dangerous."

TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). This 13-minute lecture is by a self-described "geeky" M.D., Ben Goldacre.