• Guest, the forum is undergoing some upgrades and so the usual themes will be unavailable for a few days. In the meantime, you can use the forum like normal. We'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Fake Science vs. Real Science - are the gloves coming off?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Member496333
  • Start Date Start Date
M

Member496333

Guest
In the cholesterol, diet-heart hypothesis, seed oils, saturated fat, vegan propaganda and general junk “science” world, does anyone feel as though just recently the gloves are coming off? I get the feeling that the likes of Zoë Harcombe, Malcom Kendrick etc. are getting a little less chilled, and are speaking with ever sharper tongues. Even Dr. Bret Scher just went off on one in a podcast I was listening to and apologised for having a rant.

Personally I’m loving it but then I would say that because I agree with them all. Also I may be imagining it.
 
I get the distinct impression that Big Food, Big Ag and Big Pharma are fighting back against the people who are proponents of real science, those with a view to giving lay people (we customers) an informed choice. Just my tuppence worth.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I thought Zoe Harcombe was very outspoken today. But it is worrying that big pharma are making such a noticeable comeback. Unfortunately, our non-scientific press just reproduces all the fodder they are fed without question. There are just so many people around who believe everything they are told!
 
Slightly left-field, but this afternoon I was sitting at a table with seven others after donating blood and munching the goodies (yes, my illicit Club biccie!) and we got into a conversation about fats, cholesterol, corn syrup, etc. Every one of those people - a disparate bunch we were - agreed that we had been conned for 40+ years by The Bigs. One brought up the con of low-fat foods, another marg and how we were pushed into fearing butter, yet another the sinister hold of Big Pharma over the medical profession and particularly regarding cholesterol. I am beginning to think that people are, finally, taking notice of people like Zoe Harcombe and are starting to not believe everything they are told. Ok, a very very small 'survey' but I was surprised that all of us were on the same page - perhaps the worms are, at last, turning and have taken off their gloves too.
 
How long can the con last?

The thing about the latest piece of garbage to hit the news was that the conclusion didn't match the data, to say something is or could be saving lives when the data shows no benefit at all is just fraudulent. If this was a court case, they'd be guilty of telling lies. Falsifying evidence in court has penalties.

Personally, I think this is marketing and a sickening form of it. Trying to cash in on people over 75 before their lives end. No offense to anyone, but I just think that is what they are doing. Exploiting a market where people often just do whatever the doctor says. They don't question what they are taking. Not all of course, but a lot do. I'm trying not to sound terrible when typing this.
 

I agree, it is possibly a generational thing but some people would never dream of questioning a doctor, a nurse, a drug. In 1978 I was hospitalised whilst pregnant, a nurse brought me two tablets and was sorely affronted when I asked what they were. Those days are over, there's no room left for blind faith.
And I suspect that these shenanigans are not a new phenomena.
 
They’re definitely fighting back with money. Hopefully the wisdom of crowds will continue to overcome.
 
Jim - keep an eye on the combatants.

Would any “cross over” to the Anointed?

The ones w the gloves coming off are the least likely.

Those who get favorable MSM coverage end up courted by gov’t officials.

He is even looking to politicians to “save” us. He’s seeking the solution to Ancel Keyes by copying Ancel Keyes.

He is enjoying his celebrity quite a bit.
 
Jim Lahey said:
the likes of Zoë Harcombe, Malcom Kendrick etc. are getting a little less chilled.....Even Dr. Bret Scher just went off on one in a podcast
Click to expand...

I'm sure the world of science is quaking in their boots at the thought of people who nobody has ever heard of getting angry
 
britishpub said:
I'm sure the world of science is quaking in their boots at the thought of people who nobody has ever heard of getting angry
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure it would be the world of science quaking but Pharma seem to be making an effort to push back against the growing numbers of people refusing or questioning the use of e.g statins.
It may be a case of David and Goliath at the moment but if the almighty dollar feels threatened... keep chucking bricks is what I say.
 

Why hold back his name?
 
Interesting you should say that @Guzzler When my mother was not many hours away from delivering me in 1958, a nurse came in and offered her Thalidomide. She said "No thank you very much!"
"You've been reading the Telegraph."
"No, the Times actually."
Nothing's new!
 
The reality of the con is terrible. @Tophat1900. And Governments seem to sit on the sidelines. (and other words that rhyme with that action).
 
We seem to be seeing a reaction to individuals recommending not to follow manufacturers and professional instructions in Facebook groups.
Particularly in USA orientated groups, there are many who suggest off-label use of equipment and medication, often disputing medical trials saying that they have better “results”.
While sometimes advances are made this way, (Low Carb is a good example of this) but we can also see bad results and it is natural that manufacturers and the medical profession will try to fight back against the well-meaning but uninformed quack.
 

Forgive me but the OP is a debate on the science behind the "manufacturers and professionals instructions".
It has become clear (to me, at least) that unquestioning adherence to some of these instructions is unwise. One has to admit that there are some very weak studies being published in the guise of unbiased, gold standard research. For people such as Harcombe, Cummins, Kendrick and Ionnides to point out there are sometimes glaring omissions or a 'massaging' of figures etc in some of the studies is not quackery, it is offering up information to we, the masses at the receiving end of instructions, so that we become informed.

The use of off label drugs by a non professional is, I agree, quite dangerous and I believe any suggestion of this kind on this particular platform would result in immediate moderation/warning/ban.
 
Manufacturers fight back against anything that threatens profit. Irrespective of anything else.

No one here is recommending any unapproved medicines promoted by “quacks”. Most seem to prefer the idea of no medications at all, which is the crux of the problem for those with an obligation to make as much money as possible for their shareholders.

Gary Fettke, who is most definitely not a quack, was targeted for “active defence” (leaked documents) which basically means witch hunt. Then there’s Tim Noakes, also very far from being a quack, who was treated similarly.
 

It's a war out there. I mean come on now they want ALL over 75's to take statins to improve their health!!!! So if your loosing the battle for hearts and minds over cholesterol change your tactics and promote it with other, possibly, made up results.
 
I think you will find that the lower age limit is a lot less than 75. I am 70 and earlier this week I was “offered” statins as a cure for my “high” cholesterol. The Qrisk program is set up to include just about any and everybody regardless on need. It doesn’t take into account of lifestyle. I think you get a 10% score for being 70+. Mine was 13%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…