The Scientific Debate Forum.
Extract:
Most of these kinds of studies are called "epidemiological," which is derived from their first use to understand "infectious diseases," which were said to cause "epidemics." I am using quotation marks here because of the fact that all factors are not controlled for, which is required by the scientific method. If you've read though some of my essays here, you realize that the fatty acids you eat can play a huge role in your health, whether you develop particular "diseases," etc., but of course there are many other factors that are rarely or never taken into account (such as the socio-economic ones).
Indeed, one could argue that it is impossible to do so, yet that does not explain how a "scientist" can decide to not control for factors that have been demonstrated to be important (such as the fatty acids). I call the worst abuses of this approach "smelly socks epidemiology," because it would be easy to find an "association" between how much a person's socks smell at the end of the day to just about any "disease," and yet hardly anyone would think that the socks caused the disease, though if you substitute "sugar," "salt," "cholesterol," or any number of things most people view as "unhealthy," few question the results, and the existing dogma is reinforced.
One way to refute a supposedly scientific claim is to demonstrate that there is another explanation that accounts for all the data without any problems. It is not difficult to validate experimentally the points I've made on this site; all a researcher needs to do is to feed one group of animals the diet and supplements I suggest while feeding another group a diet that is consistent with the "typical American" diet, and then expose the animals to various "infectious diseases." If the latter group becomes ill but the former does not (or if the incidence of "disease" is much lower and/or the manifestation of it greatly attentuated) it would be clear that at least most "infectious diseases" are epiphenomenal - resulting from a combination of factors that one could avoid or manipulate to best effect.
Of course, this would then mean a loss of jobs for many very powerful people n the biomedical establishment, a huge loss of profits for companies that make certain "medicines," etc., so even if such exeperiments are performed, do not expect the mainstream media to explain to you what the implications are. As I said in another essay here, experiments like this are being done, but the researchers are not controlling for the variables that appear to play a major (if not the major) role, due to excessive "professional" specialization (since I have cited other studies which point to the roles these variables play in "disease" in several essays here).
The most common problem, however, is the finding of a "link," "association," or "correlation." This compounds the problem of looking for markers, adding another level of "noise" instead of just employing the scientific method.
The "link," or whatever they call it, is often due to socio-economic or other "non-scientific" factors. For example, from sciencedaily.com (on 1/20/2006) was the following:
"Wine Drinkers Have Healthier Diets Than Beer Drinkers:
etc
