Originally Posted by Attilio

The issue here and why I believe these anti alcohol stats is because nobody is benefitting except individual people who will likely quit consuming it. It goes against the money, goes against power. Alcohol not only is big business but it's a great sedative to make people weak, powerless and accept what their government is shoving down their throats, or at least take away the strength to resist.

Originally Posted by terrymorse

Tell it, comrade! To paraphrase that great German scientific philosopher, "Alkohol ist das Opium des Volkes".



10-12 subjects? To be fair, that's a pretty common size -- for an athletic performance study (which is why we should all be skeptical of those findings).



I can think of one big and powerful group that would benefit: the health insurance industry.

Originally Posted by rsbob

In my experience, science is deemed ‘bogus’ when it interferes with something someone wants to do or not do.

Originally Posted by Attilio

This is true but going back to med school, at least at the recent turn of the century (circa 2000 A.D.) the indoctrination wasn't really present, they were still encouraging critical thinking and above all they trained us to be very skeptical of what is called science. The problem is that a study can be designed based on inclusion criteria or how the control groups are chosen or treated to seem quite valid when in reality they easily confound variables that can reach the desired conclusion by those behind the study.

The issue here and why I believe these anti alcohol stats is because nobody is benefitting except individual people who will likely quit consuming it. It goes against the money, goes against power. Alcohol not only is big business but it's a great sedative to make people weak, powerless and accept what their government is shoving down their throats, or at least take away the strength to resist. It's a numbing agent part of the "bread and circus for the masses" control agenda that has been going on for millenia and useful to the politicians, international finance, corporations and old money power structure.

Obviously going against the money or big companies isn't always a sign of truth either, take the anti-vax quack from the UK who claimed that vaccines cause autism in children. His "study" had a sample size of maybe 10-12 subjects which alone made his claims ridiculous on its face. But these anti alcohol studies are huge, of high quality, very significant, and the message is very repeatable through slightly different study designs in different places with large groups of people. When you have that level of reproducibility using different techniques, looking at different things, surviving peer review to that high level and it goes against the established money I listen! The truth is that there is no "cui bono" or "who benefits" other than individuals saving money, time, disease and life expectancy. Being without alcohol is like most good things in life, free!

Originally Posted by rsbob

In my experience, science is deemed ‘bogus’ when it interferes with something someone wants to do or not do.

Originally Posted by rsbob

Very much agree.

Was ready for someone to challenge me and say that one cannot trust science because it flip flops. My reply would have been that sciences is evolutionary. Beware click bait headlines, do your research using reputable institutions and research studies. Having an undergrad in Bio Sci I was inculcated in the Scientific Method but at the same time taught to question and validate. We have two M.D.s in the immediate family and several which are friends as a result. I appreciate their thoughtful approach to life and values.

Originally Posted by wolfchild

Nutrition science is as bogus as it gets. Humans have thrived for many thousands of years and still do in many parts of the world without science telling them what to eat, how much to eat, when to, eat etc..I will go a step further and also say that the entire supplement industry and " health food" industry are a total scam..

Originally Posted by Attilio

Well you can't really trust anything but as a mechanism anything that is able to grab people's attention has at least some nugget of truth behind it. What is less certain and variable is to be able to tease out that nugget of truth and what the propaganda spin is behind it, the latter is where the lies tend to be. Perhaps the best question to ask then is the legal Cui Bono which is normally how the courts start prosecuting white collar crime, who benefits usually explains what is going on. It's not the be all and end all of answers but but looking for conflicts of interest in any headline, story or say "piece of science" is a start. And with the alcohol thing I really don't see any conflicts of interest except against big liquor and government tax revenues! Perhaps the insurance industry might benefit as a whole but that is reaped from a benefit of the general public so it's most certainly not a conflict of interest.

Originally Posted by wolfchild

Nutrition science is as bogus as it gets. Humans have thrived for many thousands of years and still do in many parts of the world without science telling them what to eat, how much to eat, when to, eat etc..I will go a step further and also say that the entire supplement industry and " health food" industry are a total scam..

Originally Posted by PeteHski

Supplements and nutrition science are not the same thing.

Originally Posted by PeteHski

As for humans “thriving” for many thousands of years without “science” most of them were dead and buried before they reached 50!

Originally Posted by wolfchild

It wasn't the actual food that killed them early.... It was hard dangerous life, injuries, sickness, war and inconsistent food supply which resulted in malnutrition and starvation is what killed them early. After thousands of years of experimenting with various food stuffs humans have had nutrition figured out.

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

Advances in nutrition during the past century are generally credited with adding roughly 10 years to overall life expectancy. So, no, humans did not already have "nutrition figured out."

Originally Posted by wolfchild

Advances in medical science during the past century is what has added many extra years to overall life expectancy.... Nutrition science has just created confusion.

Originally Posted by PeteHski

Supplements and nutrition science are not the same thing. I would agree that the supplements industry is highly dubious.

As for humans “thriving” for many thousands of years without “science” most of them were dead and buried before they reached 50!

Originally Posted by rsbob

Very much agree.

Was ready for someone to challenge me and say that one cannot trust science because it flip flops. My reply would have been that sciences is evolutionary. Beware click bait headlines, do your research using reputable institutions and research studies. Having an undergrad in Bio Sci I was inculcated in the Scientific Method but at the same time taught to question and validate. We have two M.D.s in the immediate family and several which are friends as a result. I appreciate their thoughtful approach to life and values.

Originally Posted by 79pmooney

Pre-agriculture, there is good evidence that people both lived into their 90s and that they had excellent bone health at that age. Yes, many did not live to see adulthood but that might have been deliberate to maintain tribe size to within available resources. (A completely pagan concept - limit human numbers instead of reproducing and nurturing those lives to the oblivion of the planet as we know it.)

Originally Posted by PeteHski

Supplements and nutrition science are not the same thing.

Originally Posted by wolfchild

The only difference between supplement industry and nutrition industry is that nutrition is controlled by FDA, while supplement industry is not....As far a science goes. The science behind supplements is completely bogus, it's nothing but marketing to sell more supplements....The problem with nutrition science is that, it's very inconsistent and every few years they change their position and tell us something different.

Originally Posted by wolfchild

The only difference between supplement industry and nutrition industry is that nutrition is controlled by FDA, while supplement industry is not....As far a science goes. The science behind supplements is completely bogus, it's nothing but marketing to sell more supplements....The problem with nutrition science is that, it's very inconsistent and every few years they change their position and tell us something different.

Originally Posted by 79pmooney

Pre-agriculture, there is good evidence that people both lived into their 90s and that they had excellent bone health at that age. Yes, many did not live to see adulthood but that might have been deliberate to maintain tribe size to within available resources. (A completely pagan concept - limit human numbers instead of reproducing and nurturing those lives to the oblivion of the planet as we know it.)

Originally Posted by wolfchild

Advances in medical science during the past century is what has added many extra years to overall life expectancy.... Nutrition science has just created confusion.

Originally Posted by PeteHski

Confusion as in it doesn't happen to fit your personal nutritional preferences?

Originally Posted by genejockey

Dude. The Scientific Method IS to question and validate. I like to say my job is to come up with an idea or an explanation for something and then try as hard as I can to prove myself wrong, and if I fail, I succeed.

Also, always be your own harshest critic, because if you don't, others will be happy to do that job for you.