Disastrous Scientific Consensus Finally Crumbles After 60 Years Of Deadly Failure!

Update: To the sheep of David Appell: http://notrickszone.com/2015/06/09/disastrous-scientific-consensus-finally-crumbles-after-60-years-of-deadly-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-1029797
====================================

Science has a way of calling itself the art of enlightenment, yet historically it has a nasty habit of taking us deep into dark dead-ends. Human history is filled with examples.

Whenever new theories get prematurely accepted as hard fact, policies usually follow and mislead society into new and ultimately disastrous directions. Dissidents are cast into academic exile. Eventually society gets led deep into a dark dead-end, light-years from the truth. Society wakes up and mends its ways only when real science is allowed to function once again.

So it was with the lipid theory, where cholesterol from high fat diets was claimed to be a major killer. Today, after 6 decades, it is turning out to be strikingly false.

That lipid theory was propelled in the 1950s by Dr. Ancel Keyes and his infamous, phony 7-country chart, which purported to show a direct link between heart disease and fat intake. Six decades long western societies were led to adopting the low-fat high carb diet for healthy living as a result. Today, after tens of millions having died horrible deaths from diabetes, heart disease and cancer, the science is only now finally beginning to admit it had gravely erred. The consensus science had been wrong.

Must read

Disclose.tv here has an article by Dr. Dwight Lundell, a veteran heart surgeon, who tells why it was wrong, and the horrendous consequences.

… we opinion makers insisted heart disease resulted from the simple fact of elevated blood cholesterol.

The only accepted therapy was prescribing medications to lower cholesterol and a diet that severely restricted fat intake. The latter of course we insisted would lower cholesterol and heart disease. Deviations from these recommendations were considered heresy and could quite possibly result in malpractice.”

The result he writes:

Despite the fact that 25% of the population takes expensive statin medications and despite the fact we have reduced the fat content of our diets, more Americans will die this year of heart disease than ever before.” […]

The long-established dietary recommendations have created epidemics of obesity and diabetes, the consequences of which dwarf any historical plague in terms of mortality, human suffering and dire economic consequences.”

Imagine that it took 6 decades to figure that out.

The same will be true when it comes to the CO2 and climate theory. The parallels are stunning. Like the lipid theory, the climate-CO2 theory is also based on an absurd hockey stick chart fabricated by a less-than-honest activist scientist. It’s going to take a few more decades, and probably here too tens of millions of premature deaths as well.

Consensus is the brake failure of science

It wasn’t until early last year that I rejected the old consensus on cholesterol and health and switched to a high-fat, low carb diet that includes lots of meats, eggs, Kerrygold butter and vegetables. Since then I’ve lost 20 lbs, my blood pressure has returned to normal, and my blood values are normal. I haven’t felt better in at least 20 years. This is what results from rejecting “consensus” science.

The lesson here? Consensus is the brake failure of science. When it happens we can only hope it doesn’t take us over a cliff. This is precisely what is happening today in climate science.

The 97% should have been ignored

Concerning heart disease, if earlier patients had ignored 97% of the doctors and followed the advice of the other 3%, many would still be alive and even healthy today.

Reading Dr. Lundell’s admission at the above link may change your life and make it immensely better.

84 responses to “Disastrous Scientific Consensus Finally Crumbles After 60 Years Of Deadly Failure!”

  1. atheo

    In each case there were powerful economic and geopolitical interests served. This explains the institutional pressure harnessed to force conformity.

    Analysis at:

    https://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/the-saturated-fat-scam-whats-the-real-story/

    and

    https://alethonews.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/three-mile-island-global-warming-and-the-cia/

  2. David Appell

    1) Because one scientific theory was wrong, does not make all scientific theories are wrong. You can’t just piggyback on that earlier wrongness — you have to actually *DO* the hard work of providing evidence and data that shows AGW is wrong.

    2) The scientific case for AGW does not depend on the hockey stick.

    3) The hockey stick does not attribute modern warming.

    4) The hocket stick has been replicated and reproduced about a dozen times by now, including via different mathematical techniques.

    1. IdontbelieveinCAGW

      1) Just because one consensus based scientific theory was wrong, does mean that we should question any other consensus based scientific theory.

      2) The “scientific case” against CO2 was based in large part on the hockey stick.

      3) The inventor of the hockey stick uses it to attribute warming to a build up of CO2 in the atmosphere.

      4) Google shows lots of statements such as yours, that the hockey stick has been replicated numerous times. Just like you, none of them offer up any actual sources, just an assertion that something is true.

      1. David Appell

        #2 is wrong
        #3 is wrong
        Re #4: [-snip pal-reviewed papers are everywhere and are motivated by interests other than science. It has been totally discredited, and I’m tired of people repeating obvious lies. PG]

        1. David Appell

          Baloney. Keep censoring the science — it’s the only way to keep up your charade.

          Are there any denier-blogs left that don’t censor comments they don’t like?

          1. IdontbelieveinCAGW

            Are there any alarmists sites or MSM sites (sometimes one and the same) that don’t censor comments they don’t like? Most of the MSM ones are quite open about the fact that skeptical comments aren’t welcome.

          2. AndyG55

            “Keep censoring the science ”

            When you actually produce some… rather than the moronic idiocy of propaganda that you spew forth.
            Your ramblings are NOT science in any way shape or form, they are rabid propaganda lies and misinformation.

        2. Moose

          You are totally wrong and you know it, but keep on denying!

    2. Walter H. Schneider

      That is not a very convincing assertion. You must provide at least some substantiation from reputable, credible sources. I suppose you don’t have anything like that, which is why you think that anyone here will just take your word for it.

      Sorry, but that will not work here or anywhere else where people subscribe to more rigorous rules of science than those that you go by.

      Try again.

    3. AndyG55

      “does not make all scientific theories are wrong”

      But the climate change/global warming/climate disruption/whatever failed hyposthesis, is most certainly proven WRONG.

      But keep digging, its what you do, and you are obviously in way over your head.

      Oh, btw, DA, did you realise that after a night of your heavy climate breathing in your grandma’s basement, the CO2 level is probably 4000-5000ppm ??

    4. Bernie

      Your hockey stick comments are so wrong it’s laughable! Read some modern articles on it, D.A.

      1. David Appell

        I’ve read many articles on the hockey stick results. I provided a partial list, but Pierre won’t allow it to be posted here.

    5. Derek Colman

      The hard work has been done, just as in the lipid theory. There are a thousand or more published papers explaining recent global warming without reference to CO2. As with the lipid theory, the scientists who published these papers are ignored by the MSM, often dismissed as cranks, vilified, and accused of being paid shills of the fossil fuel industry, even though they deny and can prove that is not the case. This is the 3% that don’t go along with the consensus.

  3. DirkH

    The IDEA of a consensus contradicts empiricism. Consensus means a different thing than TRUTH.

    Whenever a consensus forms, it means that nothing more will be discovered , only protective hypotheses to protect the core hypothesis will be formulated by the members of the consensus.

    So… real researchers will always try to disprove a consensus. You don’t find them in the ranks of the consensus members. (Scientifically, the consensus members can be ignored. THey compensate their mediocrity by their numbers.)

    1. David Appell

      NASA used the consensus on Newtonian gravity to get to the moon and back.

      1. ColA

        Although Newtons Theory on Gravity is generally accepted there is still a lot of unanswered questions about it because gravity is NOT FULLY UNDERSTOOD!! Centuries ago the consensus was that the earth was flat and the centre of the universe and Galileo was almost burned as a hieratic!!
        Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it!
        Question what is and make sure that the answer is based on clear properly applied scientific method.

        1. David Appell

          Gravity is very well understood, except in the quantum regime near the Planck length. Einstein’s general theory of relativity replaced Newtonian gravitation, but the latter works very adequately in regimes where speeds are small compared to the speed of life and the curvature of spacetime is small. Besides NASA, astronomers use it every single day.

          1. AndyG55

            Oh FFS, you are seriously a low-level moron, DA.

            The FACT of gravity is a physically verifiable and tested reality. Climate science IS NOT, in any shape or form.

            Climate science is a FAILED low-level hypothesis, that gained political acceptance with idiots like you.

            And here are some other real FACTS for you, Appleseed-brain.

            read and LEARN , if you even slightly capable.

            1. Coal is the cheapest form of electricity.

            2. The world’s population is going to increase.

            3. To advance, countries need a solid, reliable consistent energy/electricity supply.. see point 1.

            4. The expanding population will mean that more food will be needed.

            4. The ONLY nature food creation process is the combination of CO2 and H2O by photosynthesis.

            5. The world is currently at a VERY LOW atmospheric CO2 level for the needs of an expanding population.

            This absurd CO2 demonisation MUST END if the world is to survive. !!

            CO2 in any possible MAXIMUM atmospheric level is totally and absolutely BENEFICIAL to the whole planet !!!

          2. David Appell

            “Coal is the cheapest form of electricity.”

            Actually coal is among the most expensive forms of electricty, when you add in the costs of the damage it does to health and to the environment.

            “Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States Economy,” Nicholas Z. Muller, Robert Mendelsohn, and William Nordhaus, American Economic Review, 101(5): 1649–75 (2011).
            http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649

            Summarizing that paper’s findings: for every $1 in value that comes from coal-generated electricity, it creates $2.20 in damages.

            Total damages: $70 billion per year (in 2012 dollars).

            Petroleum-generated electricity is even worse: $5.13 in damages for $1 in value.

          3. DirkH

            David Appell says:
            10. June 2015 at 1:56 AM
            “Gravity is very well understood,”

            Actually not even that is true. Gravity is absolutely not well understood. Newton never even attempted an explanation. As to Einstein – no gravity waves have ever been observed so that looks a little shakey now.

          4. David Appell

            “You mean it is the most expensive form of energy when you add the made-up costs and ignore the huge benefits.”

            No. Read the paper to see that they valued benefits.

          5. DirkH

            Ah David you crack me up! From the abstract:

            “Solid waste combustion, sewage treatment, stone quarrying, marinas, and oil and coal-fired power plants have air pollution damages larger than their value added.”

            Hey, EVERYBODY LISTEN: David Appell fights against sewage treatment! Hahahaha!

            Good luck, David!

          6. AndyG55

            As soon as you see ANY paper that talks of damage due to CO2 emissions, you know it is a load of propaganda BS. !!

            I repeat because DA has great trouble understanding and accepting the REAL TRUTH….

            2. The world’s population is going to increase.

            3. To advance, countries need a solid, reliable consistent energy/electricity supply.

            4. The expanding population will mean that more food will be needed.

            5. The ONLY nature food creation process is the combination of CO2 and H2O by photosynthesis.

            6. The world is currently at a VERY LOW atmospheric CO2 level for the needs of an expanding population.

            The MASSIVE and undeniable benefits of CO2 from the use of coal and other fossil fuels throughout human history far outweighs the small damage done by real pollutants, that are now mostly very well controlled.

            On a cost vs BENEFIT basis, coal is very obviously THE CHEAPEST fuel available for electricity.

            Heck we could even burn it without using it for electricity, and it would still be highly beneficial for all life on Earth..

            This absurd CO2 demonisation MUST END if the world is to survive. !!

          7. David Appell

            “As to Einstein – no gravity waves have ever been observed so that looks a little shakey now.”

            There is no real doubt that gravitational waves exist, because of work done on the first pulsar discovered by Hulse and Taylor. The inspiral of their binary pair exactly matched the predictions from Einstein’s equations due to the emission of gravitational radiation.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1913%2B16#/media/File:PSR_B1913%2B16_period_shift_graph.svg

            Advanced LIGO is going online in just a few months, and is expected to see gravitational waves this decade.

      2. Katabasis

        I love it when someone uses the gravity example.

        Unlike CAGW, the general behaviour, and fact of gravity is something that is verifiable by anyone, anywhere on the planet at any time and without any scientific instruments or obfuscated computer models.

        1. David Appell

          You can verify Newton’s law of gravity anytime on Earth?

          No, you can’t — you need precise astronomical measurements to verify it completely. At best you can verify the acceleration due to gravity (g), but you can’t easily verify F=GMm/r^2.

      3. DirkH

        David Appell says:
        10. June 2015 at 12:30 AM
        “NASA used the consensus on Newtonian gravity to get to the moon and back.”

        Newtons’s Law (which is actually just an application of Kepler’s Law) is easily proven by experiment, so it is the empirical truth (for nonrelativistic speeds etc – i.e. in our environment).

        Calling it a consensus is disingenious. A consensus only needs to be found if there is the possibility that things might be different. You don’t hold a meeting to form a consensus on whether your fridge is empty, as it can be determined easily.

        So, the warmunists AGAIN argue dishonestly to gain credibility they don’t deserve.

        1. David Appell

          Actually Kepler’s Laws are an application of Newton’s theory of dynamics and gravitation. Newton’s laws imply Kepler’s laws, but not the other way around.

      4. IdontbelieveinCAGW

        And yet they still call it a theory 🙂

        1. David Appell

          The word “theory” is what scientists call a body of ideas and the facts and evidence supporting them.

      5. AndyG55

        “to get to the moon and back.”

        That was the old NASA…. a long time ago….

        nothing much since,

        because they FORGOT basic science and became political activists.

        1. David Appell

          Nothing much from NASA since?? You should pay more attention to the news, especially about all those rovers on Mars.

  4. ColA

    A word of caution here ,,, I was recently told I was diabetic and I now take pills for diabetes, high cholesterol and high blood pressure. Yes there is obviously a huge and growing problem in the western world with obesity and poor diet. Is diabetes a new disease? NO it is not ….. I was talking to my Indian friends about it and said that I expected it was not common in Indian culture because of their diet and they gave me a strange look and the wife said her father and grandfather both had diabetes and that it is fairly common in India. They then told me that it has been known of for centuries and was called “sweet piss disease” because ants would be attracted to the urine of those with a blood sugar problem!!
    Through my limited medical readings so far the I have found the opinions on any diet/medicine/cause&cure are worse than climate change and trying to workout what to do is a nightmare. As for Dr. Lundell it appears was suspended several times for poor medical practices and no longer is a registered medical Dr! he declared bankruptcy more than once and promotes his own well being organisation which sells expensive subscriptions and promotes sales of his books and health supplements (which he owns shares in).
    You should ALWAYS INVESTIGATE and QUESTION and make sure you understand not just the answers you are getting but also the accuracy of the question you are trying to answer!
    As for me, I always remember my old German Professors advise – “If it looks like shitzer and if it smells like shitzer but it sounds too good to be shitzer then it bloody is SHITZER!!”

    1. David Appell

      Well, well…..

      “Dwight C. Lundell, M.D. lost medical license in 2008.”

      http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/lundell.html

      1. Arsten

        Yes, let’s look at the author of Quackwatch: http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/quackpots/barrett.htm

    2. Walter H. Schneider

      What is the point of your comment?

    3. Walter H. Schneider

      ColA, sorry, I should be more clear, as to who this is addressed to. Let me try again. What is the point of your comment?

      1. ColA

        Walter,
        On CAGW I am a realist/sceptic = I have not studied anything that convinces me CAGW is driven by CO2. I have not seen any clear & acceptable hypothesis for the pause, (Karl was so tortured I could hear the screams from Australia!). The Climate models are an unmitigated failure.
        Very few climate blogs are impartial, but I found many that are happy to twist the truth/science to their own agenda’s and those who rightly question the science are not always respected with a reasonable answer supported with data or evidence. Even here, the to and froe with David Appell could be better supported from both sides rather than being dismissive!
        As for diabetes, heart disease and carbs – my jury is still out! I can confirm that eating bread will drive up my blood glucose from 6 to 9 or 10 mmol/L after 1 hour and so I try and limit the type and quantity of my carb intake. The medical blogs and sites I have seen so far make me very cautious as it is obvious there are many more fraudsters, charlatans and scammers on these sites than I have seen on Climate sites. So Walter, I suppose after this ramble my point was in my last 2 paragraphs:-

        You should ALWAYS INVESTIGATE and QUESTION and make sure you understand not just the answers you are getting but also the accuracy of the question you are trying to answer!
        And
        “If it looks like shitzer and if it smells like shitzer but it sounds too good to be shitzer then it bloody is SHITZER!!”

  5. TINSTAAFL

    The emperical fact that Pierre lost 20 lbs and feels much better than the last 20 years is a more important than all theories about High or Low Carb. Same with climate, emperical facts debunk most if not all models and theories.

    1. AndyG55

      T, DA is only interested in propagandising the failed hypothesis of global warming/climate change/ climate disruption / wtf !!

      That is his soulless aim in life.. to damage human existence.

  6. DirkH

    Elon Musk cashes in another 15 million USD in subsidies for his company Tesla motors, a rather small amount by his standards.
    http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/06/10/tesla-receives-30-of-cal-tax-credits-for-promising-4500-jobs/
    California Politicians who pretend to fight for the little guy prefer to give tax money ripped from the little guy to a billionaire; maybe they get some expensive vanity cars in return.
    They also get the added benefit of being able to complain about growing inequality. After making it.

  7. MJSnyder

    Pierre – Last year you had a posting on your life-style changes that intrigued me, so I followed the links, that lead to more links, that lead…..
    I became convinced that the low carb diet was the way to go. So I switched to high fat, low carb. I’m now down 43 lbs, my blood pressure has normalized (now 5 pills less per day), my type II diabetes is controlled (7 pills less). I’ve also dropped Lipitor (cholesterol statin) and no longer have excruciating leg cramps.
    My original goal was a loss of 80 lbs, but this has been so easy to attain that I’m thinking of extending it to 100 lbs.
    I’m feeling so good about myself again that I’m seriously planning another cross-continent bicycle tour. That would the 3rd. I’m 71 years now.
    Thank you Pierre – I’m very grateful for you sharing your personal experiences.

    I’m convinced that the Climate Science industry and the Pharmacological industry are fraternal twins.

  8. benpal

    Lear more about cholesterol by looking at a wide range of literature:
    http://acsh.org/?s=cholesterol&cat=57&x=14&y=26
    “To be absolutely clear, the change in recommendation is for cholesterol in the diet only — there is still scientific consensus that elevated levels of so-called “bad” cholesterol (LDL) in the blood are definitely linked to cardiovascular disease.”
    Which essentially means that high levels of cholesterol in the blood are probably due to a malfunction of the organism and not related to diet.
    The same seems to be true for salt and its consumption:
    http://acsh.org/?s=salt&cat=0&x=19&y=32

    1. DirkH

      Well that looks like a real scattershot of papers, showing the current confusion in Consensus fighting the new paradigm. It’s gotten already more complicated, probably that can be found in the scattershot as well: Now it’s no longer good vs bad Cholesterol alone but the particle size matters, small is bad. I think Diamond talked about that here:
      “David Diamond, Ph.D., of the University of South Florida College of Arts and Sciences shares his personal story about his battle with obesity. Diamond shows how he lost weight and reduced his triglycerides by eating red meat, eggs and butter.”
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vr-c8GeT34

  9. Figaro

    Ancel Keys was a fraudster, erasing 14 of the 21 countries he studied, just because of the inconveniente truth of no correlation between fat and cardio vascular accidents. Now, low- or no carb diets don’t stimulate insulin secretion, that in turn reduces the risk of becoming insulin-resistant leading to Type II diabetes, and does not promote fat accretion. Shortly, protein and fat digestion is an energy-negative process. If you negate readily available energy for digestion (excluding carbs from your food), your body will take the required energy from your stores: first glycogen from liver and latter from fat. Eat well and lots but lose weight; just don’t eat readily soluble carbs (bread, rice, pasta, corn cereals, refined sugars and exert caution with fructose) but indulge in beans, ery low glycemic index and rich in resistant starch. I am in such a regime, bound to lose 25 pounds in a year and I do nutrition for a living.

  10. Martin

    Mr. Gosselin, you should listen to this interview with Nina Teicholz the author of The Big Fat Surprise. She says that when she started investigating the saturated-fat-kills-your-heart hypothesis many scientists she spoke to seemed uncomfortable and under pressure to go along with the consensus. I have added her book to my long books to read list

    http://robbwolf.com/2014/07/08/episode-231-nina-teicholz/

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close