rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fresh, your question was, <> and I have answered
> that.

a little miscommunication there I think.

I was responding to this
"I like raw foods and love fruit. At the same time, I like to see high standards applied. There is never enough of these."

I don't really know in what arena you meant by applying high standards, but since we were talking about people failing on diets and taking others advice, I figured you meant applying standards to discussion groups, and gurus, etc.



As far as online forums, people may have
> their personal opinions and have a discussion (and
> clearly, can follow forum guideliness in relation
> to the etiquette). One needs to understand the
> difference between having a chat and giving health
> advice. Those who present themselves as heath
> coaches etc, hosting any online programs etc, are
> subject to certain laws. It's a good idea to be
> familar with it.
>

I don't know where the line is drawn as far as how one presents oneself and the application of laws.


> As far as references, if all you have is one
> reference (what is it? please give details here),
> a standard thing to do is perform a thorough
> search. So do visit Scopus (or Web of Science).
> Start with the reference you have, search for
> anyone who quotes it, search for any references
> within it etc. This should give you many
> interesting leads. If you do find that 5% of fat
> in the human diet is what the scientists recommend
> indeed, I would be very interested to hear that.

I think it was you who said "the diet (955?)" failed heather, for example.
If you are going to make that claim, you would need to determine what caused the failure as opposed to failure of application of the diet.
I have not seen this done. People are quick to presume that anyone following a diet plan are doing the right thing, therefore the diet is no good.


I have not done an exhaustive search of the literature - I was just referring to my recent post on this site including the below. (and I am not making any conclusive claims on this matter from one article, I just found it interesting)

NOTE - below the primates ingest only 5% fat by calorie (2.5% dry matter).
NOTE - protein requirements below under 10%


If you are going to make a claim that humans CANNOT do the same, I would be interested in the evidence and logic. larger brains, for example, do not require MORE fat, AFAIK.

"We found some striking similarities, for example, the crude lipid or fat content of the diet (Figure 9). There were three important points regarding the crude lipid content of the diets: 1. there were no significant differences among the primate species in the fat content of their diets, 2. the seasonality in fat intake coincided with an increased ripe fruit availability, and 3. the amounts of fat in the diets were very low, even at peak consumption levels; peak was only about 8.5% lipid, and the average annual intake was only about 2.5%. As a point of reference, humans do not need more than 3-5% fat on a dry matter basis in their diet, enough to provide the one essential fatty acid and the fat soluble vitamins (RDA, 1989). Modern, westernized humans consume 15-25% fat on a dry matter basis (usually referred to as 30-45% of calories consumed) (RDA, 1989), far in excess of need or recommendation (Butrum et al., 1988)."


"Modern humans do not have high protein or fat requirements, as already mentioned. The value of 9.5% CP in the chimpanzee diet in our study is consistent with the prediction by Oftedal (1990) that all primates should have relatively low protein requirements because they have slow growth rates compared to other mammals (Case, 1978). Although a need for protein or fat is often assumed to explain increasing amounts of hunting throughout hominid evolution, primates do not have metabolic demands for high levels of protein or fat."

[www.cast.uark.edu]

fresh, what you posted is an online article. By a reference, I mean a scientific paper published in an international journal.

Here is a start for you, but the rest is in your hands. If you are really interested, you will do the work yourself.

Reference that I recommend that you start your search with is (note it is published in 2013):

Intake of fatty acids in general populations worldwide does not meet dietary recommendations to prevent coronary heart disease: A systematic review of data from 40 countries
Harika R.K., Eilander A., Alssema M., Osendarp S.J.M., Zock P.L.
(2013) Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, 63 (3) , pp. 229-238.

A quote from there:
"The mean intakes met the recommendation for total fat (20-35% E)"

There is a plefora of interesting leads from there. Have fun.



RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2014 05:07AM by rawgosia.

Right, because what primates ACTUALLY DO means nothing?

Did you even read the "article"?

jeez.

you have study-itis, or if you prefer,

"scientific paper published in an international journal-ITIS"

it's a common condition.

thanks for the chat.

send kiwis



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2014 05:16AM by fresh.

No, I would call this taking care about making sure to check the facts, before making claims, which can be read by young people, such as my friend who ended in ER who colapsed one day and could not look after her baby after that. I call this being reponsible and caring.

Telling someone that 955 is OK, despite them clearly struggling with it, despite multiple stories of health issues on it, despite no scientific evidence for it, and despite scientific recommendation to the contrary? What sort of itis would this be?


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2014 05:33AM by rawgosia.

I recently naturally switched from 90/5/5 to something closer to 80/10/10 as I felt the need for more salads, more tender greens, more veggies.
I think that it's important to listen to your body and never stick to one diet just for the sake of it.
Like Rawgosia said, "be your own guru".
I really love being my own guru

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Raw vegan for life. Vegan for the animals. Raw for my health.

rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, I would call this taking care about making
> sure to check the facts, before making claims,
> which can be read by young people, such as my
> friend who ended in ER who colapsed one day and
> could not look after her baby after that. I call
> this being reponsible and caring.

youre expecting other people to give out what you call sound advice.

it will never happen.

and you are not demanding that your friend and others take responsibility for their own decisions, no matter how young.



>
> Telling someone that 955 is OK, despite them
> clearly struggling with it, despite multiple
> stories of health issues on it, despite no
> scientific evidence for it, and despite scientific
> recommendation to the contrary? What sort of itis
> would this be?

As I have said multiple times. You say my friend got ill. "My friend was on 955.
therefore 955 is reckless". First of all i dont know what exactly she was eating and if she was really eating 955. Did she take care of b12? Clearly not. That has nothing to do with 955. Show me the data. For someone as scientifically minded as you are, you fail to see that you have not shown that 955 was the problem, and not how it was applied. She could have eaten all apples for all I know.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2014 01:47PM by fresh.

Ela2013, good on you. Listening to your needs is so important.

By the way, I do find that I switch between different "modes" of eating. I have time when I eat no greens, and times when I gorge on them.

>That list is only a tip of an iceberg. Utlimately, it wasn't Heather who failed. It was the diet that did. And those, with no basic uncerstanding of nutrition or ethics, without appropriate backgound and familiarity with the code of conduct, who act as health educators as if they were ones. Giving poor and erroneous advice to the naive. Because they can.


gosia, you have avoided any information or questions that you have no answer to , or are antithetical to your belief, such as what you think about the fat intake of primates in the "article" and what you think the implications are.

you haven't even said what YOU think caused the failure of heather.

so just to conclude this conversation, the above "it was the diet that did" is false.

unless you have defined "the diet"
and shown what exactly heather did on her diet and for how long.
and shown what the causative factors of her failure were ASIDE from b12.

I did not see where you did that anywhere.

It's interesting that those making unsupported claims like you have are given a free pass, and I am considered an irritant by insisting on facts.

fresh, your lack of understanding of the basics of science means that there would be a lof of explaining to do on my part, and frankly your derogatory tone made me lose an interest. So I won't be pursuing a discussion with you.

For the benefit of anyone who might contemplate pursuing 955, please note that it is not safe to do so. Scientific recommendations based on multiple rigorous studies in multiple countries worldwide are above that. This is because there would be a risk of deficiencies and resulting health problems as the result. Just because someone on the internet says that something is OK, it does not mean that it is. Be careful with what you read, and check the facts carefully. Unusual claims need to be supported by strong validation. Empirical sciences do not privde proofs, which exist only hard-core sciences (Maths), nevertheless there exist tools in the form of peer-reviewed studies that follow international scientific standards. Here is a little quote from the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Fats and Fatty Acids in Human Nutrition, November 10-14, 2008, WHO HQ, Geneva:

<<Minimum total fat intakes for adults*
• 15%E to ensure adequate consumption of total energy, essential fatty acids, and fat soluble
vitamins for most individuals.
• 20%E for women of reproductive age and adults with BMI < 18.5, especially in developing
countries in which dietary fat may be important to achieve adequate energy intake in malnourished
populations.
*To optimize health, special attention should be given to both the overall dietary pattern, in terms of types of food consumed, and total energy
intakes, in relation also to anthropometric (age group, BMI) and lifestyles characteristics.
>>

But, do not rely on this only, make sure to do your own research. Ask questions and be critical of what you see online, on various forum boards, youtube videos etc. This is your safety net against becoming a casualty of reckless online advice by those who have no clue yet disperse advice in a sometimes convincing way. Safety first. Fruit and veggies are great. Lack of education isn't. Take care. Listen to your body.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2014 09:32PM by rawgosia.

1. Do you personally follow the ALL the recommendations of WHO?

2. Did you have any real references from WHO, such as actual lipid intakes and the resulting clinical results when ingesting under those levels? Or is it just an approximation with safety factors added in?

3. Be sure to explain how many people function healthfully under 15%

OR just continue to avoid providing the information to justify your assertions.

Now let's look here since gosia referenced it.

[www.who.int]


If you will look at the data, there is NO RISK noted based on total fat intake, even though they do recommend lower level of 15% based on the vague health indicators noted, that gosia is also referencing, without the proper details.


do you see the column labeled INSUFFICIENT?
that is the level of confidence of the information that gosia is referencing.

The risk with higher confidence levels is from lower level details of fat intake such as PUFA, etc.

So my question is, aside from wanting to try and blame someONE or some DIET for your friend's problems, why can you not face the fact that in the absence of proper details, the default is that she did something wrong, NOT "the diet".

since ALL primates around the world eat as low as 5% fat.

where are all these fatty foods out in the wild?
how did humans survive all these years?
are you saying meat (fats) are required to survive?
because that's the only fat out there.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2014 10:36PM by fresh.

rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fresh, your lack of understanding of the basics of
> science means that there would be a lof of
> explaining to do on my part, and frankly your
> derogatory tone made me lose an interest. So I
> won't be pursuing a discussion with you.


there is no explaining to do. there is only the data, which you have not provided.

should I exit because of your condescension above?

You have provided nothing.

You have failed to support your assertion that it was "the diet" , which I'm assuming you mean 955.

If you want to blame your failure to do so on my alleged attitude, that is your right. It does not give you any credibility to expect people to believe an assertion about your friend without any evidence presented.

Finally, YOU SAID she was low in b12, which as you know causes many of her symptoms.

so WHAT does that have to do with her low fat intake?
Do you have her lipid profile? clear low fat symptoms?
still haven't seen it. Because people generally don't keep that information
and the link you provided is no longer active.

I understand that you want to save others, but

Just admit that YOU DO NOT KNOW why she didn't do well,
and stop making claims absent evidence. YOu may note that evidence and data is part of the "basics of science" that I allegedly am too stupid to understand.

rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> > ...despite them
> clearly struggling with it.....

To me, that says it all.

If it ain't working, it ain't working. Time to move on! Thankfully, there are as many approaches to raw vegan diet as there are raw vegan foods.


BTW: Thanks Rawgosia for the tip on Scopus and Web of Science.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/29/2014 07:05AM by suncloud.

Indeed and you are welcome. If you can't access these (via university), there is also PubMed which is a little limited and only with abstracts, but easy to access online. Also, once you find a paper of interest, sometimes just googling it produces a link to pdf. Authors often have pages with some information too.

<<<nevertheless there exist tools in the form of peer-reviewed studies that follow international scientific standards.>>>

As long as we are a SICK Species and live in a SICK World, SCIENCE CANNOT BE TRUSTED and therefore, should NOT be relied on for any type of PROOF!!!

"Trust Us We're Experts!"
by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber

“The idea that all scientific experiments are replicated to keep the process honest is also something of a myth. In reality, the number of findings from one scientist that get checked by others is quite small. Most scientists are too busy, research funds are too limited, and the pressure to produce new work is too great for this type of review to occur very often. What occurs instead is a system of “peer review,” in which panels of experts are convened to pass judgment on the work of other researchers. Peer review is used mainly in two situations: during the grant approval process to decide which research should get funding, and after the research has been completed to determine whether the results should be accepted for publication in a scientific journal.

Like the myth of the scientific method, peer review is also a fairly new phenomenon. ...As government support for science increased, it became necessary to develop a formal system for deciding which projects should receive funding.

In some ways, the system of peer review functions like the antithesis of the scientific method described above. Whereas the scientific method assumes that “experiment is supreme” and purports to eliminate bias, peer review deliberately imposes the bias of peer reviewers on the scientific process, both before and after experiments are conducted. ...peer review can also institutionalize conflicts of interest and a certain amount of dogmatism.” "Trust Us We're Experts!" p. 198

“’The problem with peer review is that we have good evidence on its deficiencies and poor evidence on its benefits,’ the British Medical Journal observed in 1997. ‘We know that it is expensive, slow, prone to bias, open to abuse, possibly anti-innovatory, and unable to detect fraud. We also know that the published papers that emerge from the process are often grossly deficient.’

In theory, the process of peer review offers protection against scientific errors and bias. In reality, it has proven incapable of filtering out the influence of government and corporate funders, whose biases often affect research outcomes.” "Trust Us We're Experts!" p. 199

[www.thedoctorwithin.com]
THE DOORS OF PERCEPTION:
WHY AMERICANS WILL BELIEVE ALMOST ANYTHING
- Tim O'Shea

...

THE MIRAGE OF PEER REVIEW

Publish or perish is the classic dilemma of every research scientist. That means whoever expects funding for the next research project had better get the current research paper published in the best scientific journals. And we all know that the best scientific journals, like JAMA, New England Journal, British Medical Journal, etc. are peer-reviewed. Peer review means that any articles which actually get published, between all those full color drug ads and pharmaceutical centerfolds, have been reviewed and accepted by some really smart guys with a lot of credentials. The assumption is, if the article made it past peer review, the data and the conclusions of the research study have been thoroughly checked out and bear some resemblance to physical reality.

But there are a few problems with this hot little set up. First off, money. Even though prestigious venerable medical journals pretend to be so objective and scientific and incorruptible, the reality is that they face the same type of being called to account that all glossy magazines must confront: don't antagonize your advertisers. Those full-page drug ads in the best journals cost millions, Jack. How long will a pharmaceutical company pay for ad space in a magazine that prints some very sound scientific research paper that attacks the safety of the drug in the centerfold? Think about it. The editors aren't that stupid.

Another problem is the conflict of interest thing. There's a formal requirement for all medical journals that any financial ties between an author and a product manufacturer be disclosed in the article. In practice, it never happens. A study done in 1997 of 142 medical journals did not find even one such disclosure. (Wall St. Journal, 2 Feb 99)

A 1998 study from the New England Journal of Medicine found that 96% of peer reviewed articles had financial ties to the drug they were studying. (Stelfox, 1998) Big shock, huh? Any disclosures? Yeah, right. This study should be pointed out whenever somebody starts getting too pompous about the objectivity of peer review, like they often do.

Then there's the outright purchase of space. A drug company may simply pay $100,000 to a journal to have a favorable article printed. (Stauber, p 204)

Fraud in peer review journals is nothing new. In 1987, the New England Journal ran an article that followed the research of R. Slutsky MD over a seven year period. During that time, Dr. Slutsky had published 137 articles in a number of peer-reviewed journals. NEJM found that in at least 60 of these 137, there was evidence of major scientific fraud and misrepresentation, including:

reporting data for experiments that were never done
reporting measurements that were never made
reporting statistical analyses that were never done (Engler)

Dean Black PhD, describes what he the calls the Babel Effect that results when this very common and frequently undetected scientific fraudulent data in peer-reviewed journals are quoted by other researchers, who are in turn re-quoted by still others, and so on.

Want to see something that sort of re-frames this whole discussion? Check out the McDonald's ads which often appear in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Then keep in mind that this is the same publication that for almost 50 years ran cigarette ads proclaiming the health benefits of tobacco. (Robbins)

Very scientific, oh yes.

...

[www.thedoctorwithin.com]

A situation is a lot more complex than "science cannot be trusted". I say quacks cannot be trusted, those who are unwilling to check the facts, those who post references without reading them, those who misrepresent studies by omiting words such "perhaps", "maybe" etc from them. Here is my take on this:
How to exercise your most important body part



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/29/2014 11:39AM by rawgosia.

<<<A situation is a lot more complex than "science cannot be trusted".>>>

It's a lot more complex than you think. I haven't read your article in its entirety yet, but from what I have read, it seems to me that you might be missing ONE HUGE PIECE OF THE PUZZLE!!!

As I mentioned in my Post above, "we are a SICK Species and live in a SICK World" and the reason why "SCIENCE CANNOT BE TRUSTED" is because the Sickest of the Sickest of us are controlling every Major Sector of Human Endeavor, including our Educational Systems [ [tribe-of-love.blogspot.com] ]!!!

As a result, Life is an Illusion - Everything is Backwards - Everything is Upside Down - Doctors destroy Health - Lawyers destroy Justice - Universities destroy Knowledge - Governments destroys Freedom - the Media destroys Information and Religions destroy Spirituality.

It is quite stunning that gosia is so afraid to say, "I don't have the evidence" other than some WHO recommendations.

attempts to hold others to rigorous standards,while FLOUTING those standards.
and coming up with baseless excuses to avoid discussion.

do I have a personal problem with gosia?
no, I think gosia is no doubt a wonderful person.

BUT

"check the facts"?

If you would provide some facts regarding heather and your assertions about the reason for her failure, we will check them.

scolding me and engaging in "scientist" snobbery ?.

you have claimed that the low fat intake caused her FTT.

so lets see what facts were submitted by gosia.

what did heather eat?
silence

what was her fat intake other than her saying she was 9.5.5
silence

what evidence of lipid deficiency?
silence

how long did she eat that way?
silence

fat deficiency symptoms?
silence

SHOW me ONE person who failed on a raw diet due to insufficient fat intake.

show me the evidence.

heather m from 30bad, who is not a scientist, did the same exact thing.
she said she didn't feel well when she lowered her fat intake.
which was addictive withdrawal, but she asserted (without evidence or fat deficiency symptoms) that it was the low fat.

John Rose, I understand what you are saying, but I still think that "Science cannot be trusted" is just a simplistic overstatement, and logically, it makes no sense. Think of other examples of applying such logic. No one can be trusted, because there are those who lie. Would that be correct? Of course not. Saying that A source of information cannot be trusted while simultaneously choosing B source without applying a similar logic, makes no sense either.

Also, I appreciate the fact that you are reading that article I wrote. There is also another, very relevant, and a good example of flaud information spread online:
Harley and Leanne use science.

The amount of utter rubbish spread online is staggering. To apply critical thinking, one of the tools of science is what one should exercise.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/29/2014 09:11PM by rawgosia.

Also, one point that I would like to add is that misunderstanding of science is widespread. People just quote references and think that is science. They often misrepresent what the studies actuall say, media does this frequently too. The reality is that research evolves, that there is a discussion between the scientists, who present different points of view in different papers. To be truly familiar with some area, one needs to read through the discussion, which means reading many papers, not just relying on one quote.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/29/2014 09:18PM by rawgosia.

<<<John Rose, I understand what you are saying, but I still think that "Science cannot be trusted" is just a simplistic overstatement, and logically, it makes no sense.>>>

Hey Gosia,

If you really understood what I’m talking about, you would know that it makes plenty of sense because the Rulers of the World have to Control all of our so-called Experts to make sure that none of them and, therefore, none of us ever figure out how to get and stay Healthy or solve any other problem that is 100% Within our Control.

<<<Think of other examples of applying such logic. No one can be trusted, because there are those who lie. Would that be correct? Of course not.>>>

Once again, you really don’t seem to understand that the Rulers of the World are going out of their way to Mis-Direct all of our so-called Experts and that includes people like you who have been Formally Mis-Educated - Not Formerly Mis-Educated, but Formally Mis-Educated, as a Formal Process - a Process of Indoctrination.

Let me illustrate my point my taking a closer look at (1) Two special good sites for reliable information about important topics: and (2) 7 Ways to Recognize Good Science in your reference [26] - A successful strategy for teaching students to think more critically and scientifically.

First, let’s look at Two special good sites for reliable information about important topics:

[www.isacs.org]
Two special good sites for reliable information about important topics:

The National Academies (independent organization of several hundred of the country's best scientists). Publishes understandable articles about topics of high public interest. [www.nationalacademies.org]

JR Insert: The National Academy of Sciences endorses man-made Global Warming and man-made Global Warming is a HUGE SCAM and if you do NOT understand that this is a HUGE SCAM, then you probably do NOT understand the Hegelian Problem-Reaction-Solution.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS: The world’s largest general scientific society, with many thousands of members). Also publishes the scientific consensus about topics important to the public. [www.aaas.org]

JR Insert: The American Association for the Advancement of Science - AAAS endorses Water Fluoridation for Preventing Dental Decay and this too is a HUGE SCAM and if you do NOT understand that this is a HUGE SCAM, then you probably do NOT understand anything about the Fabian Society.

JR Insert: As you can see, these so-called Independent Organizations from the link that you provided are NOT so Independent, but that’s what the Rulers of the World want you to think - see below:

[www.prwatch.org]
Trust Us, We're Experts:
How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future
by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber

…

In their new book, Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future, Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber offer a chilling exposé on the manufacturing of "independent experts." Public relations firms and corporations have seized upon a slick new way of getting you to buy what they have to sell: Let you hear it from a neutral "third party," like a professor or a pediatrician or a soccer mom or a watchdog group. The problem is, these third parties are usually anything but neutral. They have been handpicked, cultivated, and meticulously packaged to make you believe what they have to say--preferably in an "objective" format like a news show or a letter to the editor. And in some cases, they have been paid handsomely for their "opinions."

…

[www.prwatch.org]

[www.thedoctorwithin.com]
THE DOORS OF PERCEPTION:
WHY AMERICANS WILL BELIEVE ALMOST ANYTHING
- Tim O'Shea

…

LESSON #1

Bernays learned early on that the most effective way to create credibility for a product or an image was by "independent third-party" endorsement. For example, if General Motors were to come out and say that global warming is a hoax thought up by some liberal tree-huggers, people would suspect GM's motives, since GM's fortune is made by selling automobiles. If however some independent research institute with a very credible sounding name like the Global Climate Coalition comes out with a scientific report that says global warming is really a fiction, people begin to get confused and to have doubts about the original issue.

…

[www.thedoctorwithin.com]

…

[www.isacs.org]


Second, let’s look at 7 Ways to Recognize Good Science:

According to Dr. Douglas Duncan, the 1st Way to Recognize Good Science is that it should be Logical, but our so-called Experts are being Tricked into looking for Logical Fallacies in Systems with Invalid Structures. Yes, facts and data are needed for Logical Fallacies within the Contents or the Specifics, but we should NEVER start with the Contents or the Specifics and we must ALWAYS start with the Structure, otherwise, we could waste a lot of time looking for Logical Fallacies in Systems that already have an Invalid Structure.

The 2nd Way to Recognize Good Science according Dr. Duncan has us, once again, looking for Logical Fallacies in Systems with Invalid Structures. Yes, when it comes down to the Contents or the Specifics, our Data, References and Statements must be Accurate without any Logical Fallacies. But once again, we must ALWAYS start with the Structure; otherwise, we could waste a lot of time looking for Logical Fallacies in Systems with Invalid Structures.

The 3rd Way to Recognize Good Science is to only accept Information that’s coming from Peer Reviewed Journals, which like Wikipedia, are Controlled by the Rulers of the World.

The 4th Way to Recognize Good Science is to always look at Contrary information or always look at both sides of the Story and this obviously makes sense.

The 5th Way to Recognize Good Science is to always identify what is Not Known and this too obviously makes sense.

The 6th Way to Recognize Good Science is that Extraordinary Claims demand Extraordinarily Strong Evidence. Actually, it’s NOT that Complicated because everything that is extremely Profound is also extremely simple and easily verified. As Aristotle once said, “Believe only your own experience. There is no fact like a fact learned from your own life.”

And the 7th Way to Recognize Good Science is to Not accept Information or discard the type of Evidence - Anecdotal Evidence - that shows where we need to look for the Truth.

So the Rulers of the World are Con Artists or Magicians or Masters of Illusion or Masters of Mis-Direction and they are going out of their way to Mis-Direct all of our so-called Experts to make sure that we do NOT look where we need to look, which has to do with the Structure and the Anecdotal Evidence and only look where they want us to look, which has to do with the Specifics in the Systems and the Peer-Reviewed Journals that THEY CONTROL!!!

Here are the 7 Ways to Recognize Good Science in your reference [26]:

How to Recognize Good Science [26]:

1. Should be logical, based on facts and data, not just opinions.
2. Clear references are given so that you can look up data and check that statements are accurate.
3. Information has been published in peer reviewed (checked by other scientists before publication) journals.
4. Contrary information is given when it exists, not just information supporting an idea or theory.
5. What is not known is identified.
6. “If a claim is extraordinary, it demands extraordinarily strong evidence.” – Carl Sagan
7. Anecdotal information, even if impressive, is not science!

“Just knowing facts does not mean you understand” [26].

Once again, the Rulers of the World are Masters of Mis-Direction and all of us are being Tricked into looking for Logical Fallacies in Systems with Invalid Structures.

<<<Saying that A source of information cannot be trusted while simultaneously choosing B source without applying a similar logic, makes no sense either.>>>

Remember to heed the words of Aristotle, “Believe only your own experience. There is no fact like a fact learned from your own life.”

Hey Gosia,

Since you quoted Einstein so many times in your article, I thought that you might find these Posts interesting. Sorry in advance for not having any of those precious references we all like to see.

[www.rawfoodsupport.com]
Re: breatharian
Posted by: rab
Date: June 16, 2013 07:54AM

Einstein was (and still is) a FRAUD. Maybe some of the things he said were true (very few of them), but he was nothing but a clown.

Read: aetherforce.com

Re: breatharian
Posted by: John Rose
Date: June 16, 2013 11:37AM

Hey rab,

Thanks for the link. I heard several years ago that Einstein plagiarized all 4 of his papers and then, I got this email from this guy who really understands how the world works and it just confirms my understanding that the Rulers of the World turn Heroes into Villains and Villains into Heroes.

Here is my friends comment to an article he emailed out back in April of this year…

Of course, being smarter than Einstein is not so much a mind boggling feat given that many of his contemporaries classified his intellect as being rather stunted (some even referred to him as an idiot). Truth of it is that Einstein was a product of the Jewish media and he and his theories (none of which were his by the way, virtually everything that was ever presented as his work was plagiarized), were hyped by the Jewish press in order to lead orthodox western science down a false trail…and it has been chasing that dead end ever since. Einstein’s sole purpose was to keep western science from focusing on the work of Maxwell and Tesla. However, while Einstein and his fellow travelers are taught in our schools for the dumbing down of the masses, it is the science of Maxwell and Tesla that rules in the black budget science labs that are developing the super-secret technologies reserved for use in all those weapons and space exploration programs that we are not allowed to know anything about.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[listverse.com]
Top 10 Medieval Scientists Smarter Than Einstein
by Mohammed Shariff, February 1, 2013
…

Peace and Love..........John
[www.rawfoodsupport.com]

Hi John

I am familiar with the story about Einstein, but thanks for posting it for the benefit of the readers - that is something worthwhile to know indeed.

As far the discussion, let me rephraze my points, in an attempt to reach your understanding. First, if you think that I am suggesting that one should follow scientific findings blindly, that is the exact opposite to what I am saying. If you assume that I am unaware of the larger picture or think that it is not important, that is not the case at all, and the opposite is true.

Here are my points:

1) One should apply discerment to ALL information. Think critically, question, verify the sources first-hand, read from many sources. Derive your own conclusions in the end. Your health is in your hands. Listen to your body.

2) Science is a collection of tools, which help in assessing the world critically. This set of tools can be used by people in a good or bad way. Yes, there are frauds out there, and there are those who use it in a positive way. Science per se isn't bad or good. It is what one does with it, than can be.

3) Be weary of quacks. Their common tactic is to say that all science is bad, in order to lower the application of critical thinking amongst their followers, to reduce the risk of them being exposed for who they are. At the same time they disperse advice that has no basis and can seriously hurt (and does).

4) Empirical sciences do not deliver the proofs. Words such as "perhaps", "suggest" are commonly used but somehowe ommitted from the perception by readers, and misrepresented by many, media included. They deliver suggestions which are deemed to be supported by strong evidence, or not. These can include different/opposing theories that evolve in time. So the fact that something got published, does not mean that it is the ultimate. Keep reading. Apply your discerment as always.

5) Many confusions about the science arise from misunderstanding of what science is. Some quote references as if they were the absolute truth (e.g. study suugested positive effects of coffee on heart, so coffee must be gpod for you). Others quote them as the proof of science being bad (e.g. study suugested positive effects of coffee on heart, so science must be wrong). Neither of them understand what the products of science are. A mirror of reality but not the reality itself.

Regards,
Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

<<<1) One should apply discerment to ALL information. Think critically, question, verify the sources first-hand, read from many sources. Derive your own conclusions in the end. Your health is in your hands. Listen to your body.>>>

I agree with you. All of us must be our own Guru just like all of us must be our own Scientist. However, how do we know whether our sources are trustworthy?

In the article that you referenced to [26] - A successful strategy for teaching students to think more critically and scientifically, both of the Two special good sites for reliable information about important topics are NOT trustworthy!!!

<<<2) Science is a collection of tools, which help in assessing the world critically. This set of tools can be used by people in a good or bad way. Yes, there are frauds out there, and there are those who use it in a positive way. Science per se isn't bad or good. It is what one does with it, than can be.>>>

I have NO problem with Science, but I have a HUGE problem with how they teach most Scientists. As I pointed out in my Post above, which you failed to address, they don’t teach Scientists, especially those who think they are Scientists, like doctors, to look at the Structure.

So if we’re going to use Logic, there are 2 things or 2 Criterion that are needed for Logic. One is the Contents or the Specifics and the other is the Structure. The Contents or the Specifics have to be Accurate - there can be No Logical Fallacies within the Contents or the Specifics or the Details. And then, when it comes to the Structure, that’s really simple - it’s either going the Right Direction or the Wrong Direction. If you’re looking for a Sunset and you’re heading East, you’re taking the 1st Step in the Wrong Direction. This is known in Latin as Modus Ponens.

Remember, the Rulers of the World are Masters of Mis-Direction and all of our so-called Experts who are charge of Medicine and Nutrition are putting the Cart before the Horse for a Problem that is 100% Within our Control.

<<<3) Be weary of quacks. Their common tactic is to say that all science is bad, in order to lower the application of critical thinking amongst their followers, to reduce the risk of them being exposed for who they are. At the same time they disperse advice that has no basis and can seriously hurt (and does).>>>

The BIGGEST Quacks of all, Doctors and Nutritionists, hide behind Science.

Remember, (1) the 3rd Way to Recognize Good Science according to Dr. Douglas Duncan from your reference [26] is to only accept Information that’s coming from Peer Reviewed Journals and (2) the 7th Way to Recognize Good Science is to Not accept Information or discard the type of Evidence - Anecdotal Evidence - that shows where we need to look for the Truth.

<<<As far the discussion, let me rephraze my points, in an attempt to reach your understanding.>>>

There was no need for you to rephrase your points as I already understand and agree with you that we must QUESTION EVERYTHING - [www.youtube.com]

However, when SCIENTISTS are told to IGNORE the Structure and to IGNORE Anecdotal Evidence and to ONLY Accept Information that’s coming from Peer Reviewed Journals, that is a recipe for IGNORANCE.

Science is NOT the be-all and end-all. When the only Tool you have is a Hammer, every Problem you see is a Nail.

Peace and Love..........John

<<Science is NOT the be-all and end-all.>>

This is one of the points I have been trying to convey through my various writings. Those who do not understand the science, often misrepresent it as <<be-all and end-all>>. As I have been trying to convey, that is not the case.

As the result of such numerous misrepresentations of the science, people then assume that this is what the science is. It is NOT.

<<Minimum total fat intakes for adults*
• 15%E to ensure adequate consumption of total energy, essential fatty acids, and fat soluble
vitamins for most individuals.
• 20%E for women of reproductive age and adults with BMI < 18.5, especially in developing
countries in which dietary fat may be important to achieve adequate energy intake in malnourished
populations.
*To optimize health, special attention should be given to both the overall dietary pattern, in terms of types of food consumed, and total energy
intakes, in relation also to anthropometric (age group, BMI) and lifestyles characteristics.
>>

simple question. Does Gosia follow her own posted recommendations or not?

>>>>Telling someone that 955 is OK, despite them clearly struggling with it, despite multiple stories of health issues on it, despite no scientific evidence for it, and despite scientific recommendation to the contrary? What sort of itis would this be?

1.People can tell others whatever they want. you obviously have some anger about "someone" telling your friend her diet was ok. if so, then out with it!

2. Someone was struggling with "955". Your conclusion is that the fat content is the culprit. And you don't even realize how unscientific or illogical or without evidence your conclusion is.

3. "Despite no evidence for it". Gosia, there is no scientific evidence for YOUR diet.

<<<John Rose, I understand what you are saying, but I still think that "Science cannot be trusted" is just a simplistic overstatement, and logically, it makes no sense.>>>

Hey Gosia,

I just updated my file on “Science Is The Dogma of Our Time” with this article and naturally thought of you and people like TSM who falsely put your trust in Science and “peer-reviewed papers”!

[articles.mercola.com]
Investigation Finds Serious Flaws in Study That Served as Basis for Guideline Suspected of Killing Nearly a Million Europeans
August 13, 2014 | 278,839 views
By Dr. Mercola

Story at-a-glance

• European doctors may have caused as many as 800,000 deaths in five years by following the “standard of care” to use beta-blockers in non-cardiac surgery patients—a guideline based largely on discredited science
• The discredited researcher, who was fired for scientific misconduct in 2011, was also the chairman of the committee that drafted the European treatment guideline
• An investigation into the flawed study has now been completed, and while the full extent of the researcher’s scientific misconduct is almost impossible to ascertain, it appears to be extensive
• Investigations assessing the prevalence of scientific fraud and/or its impact show that the problem is widespread and serious

…

Tragic Fact: Most Research Claims Cannot Be Trusted

In 2005, Dr. John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, showed that there is less than a 50 percent chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper will be true.15 So just think about this for a moment. You have a far better chance of tossing a coin and guessing correctly than you do for any random "scientific" paper is valid. This is extraordinary, especially since skeptics who regularly ridicule natural medicine use these studies as a justification for the vilifications.

…
[articles.mercola.com]

More like pharmaceutical science cannot be trusted, and I agree.