Anyone seen this "mythbusting" of Ravnskov?

http://skepdic.com/refuge/bunk28.html

Thoughts?

b

"brigid nelson" wrote in message
. ..
http://skepdic.com/refuge/bunk28.html

Thoughts?

b

The critic needs to read Taubes.

Cubit wrote:
"brigid nelson" wrote in message
. ..
http://skepdic.com/refuge/bunk28.html

Thoughts?

b

The critic needs to read Taubes.


I agree with you about that. My critical reading skills aren't always
the best, but I felt like the critic was more guilty of using 'straw
man' arguments then the accused (UR). It read like a mess and I had a
hard time deciding whether his criticisms were matters of fact or ideology.

brigid

brigid nelson wrote:

http://skepdic.com/refuge/bunk28.html
Thoughts?

Tempest in a teapot. There are better risk factors for heart
disease than cholesterol readings therefore cholesterol
readings are of secondary importance. Intense focus on
these readings is a waste of effort.

Consider - If low carb tends to reduce the numbers (50%
see reduction in 3 months, 80% in 6 months according to
various editions of the Atkins books) AND if 20-30% of
people who have heart attacks don't have high numbers,
the whole thing is effort spent on the wrong tests.

Consider - Cholesterol drugs are very profitable. Reducing
the percentage of smokers in the population reduces profits
of tobacco companies and health care providers and have
no net effect on insurance companies as they just tune their
rates.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:39:00 -0500, brigid nelson
wrote:

http://skepdic.com/refuge/bunk28.html

Thoughts?

b

"Their goal is to cherry pick data to support their contention that low
cholesterol is bad for you and high cholesterol is positively good for
you."


A similar thing could be said for the other side: Their goal is to cherry
pick data to support their contention that high cholesterol is bad for you
and low cholesterol is positively good for you."

The difference is that Ravnskov stands on a solid scientific footing. If
there are 10 studies that support an assertion and 10 studies that do not,
then no conclusion can be drawn wrt the assertion. The "high cholesterol
is bad" people just ignore the studies that do not support their assertion
and therefore draw a fallacious conclusion. What Rav does is point out
all the studies that don't agree with their assertion and state that this
means the assertion isn't proven. Rav doesn't state (as hypothesized by
the author of that article) that studies prove high cholesterol is good
and low cholesterol is bad; just that studies have indicated data opposite
to the assertions being given. Rav is scientifically sound because of
this.


--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Bob wrote:

"Their goal is to cherry pick data to support their contention that low
cholesterol is bad for you and high cholesterol is positively good for
you."


A similar thing could be said for the other side: Their goal is to
cherry pick data to support their contention that high cholesterol is
bad for you and low cholesterol is positively good for you."

The difference is that Ravnskov stands on a solid scientific footing.
If there are 10 studies that support an assertion and 10 studies that do
not, then no conclusion can be drawn wrt the assertion. The "high
cholesterol is bad" people just ignore the studies that do not support
their assertion and therefore draw a fallacious conclusion. What Rav
does is point out all the studies that don't agree with their assertion
and state that this means the assertion isn't proven. Rav doesn't state
(as hypothesized by the author of that article) that studies prove high
cholesterol is good and low cholesterol is bad; just that studies have
indicated data opposite to the assertions being given. Rav is
scientifically sound because of this.


Thank you.

b