This brings up an interesting point. In teaching the history of
science, the scientific method is stressed (in my classes, anyway).
Harvey's circulation of the blood, for example, can be verified by
observation. It never fails. The laws of motion can be verified so
that it is clear they are valid (at least under the conditions Newton
and his contemporaries could imagine).
Let's say shark cartilidge in some concoction can cure a specific
cancer. How would we know? How much evidence would be required to
validate the claim? Suppose it seemed to cure 90% of the cancers in
dogs - would that be good enough? If the establishment doesn't like
these guys, then perhaps they should specify the guidelines that are
acceptable to them. They won't, and the reason is that very toxic and
expensive drugs are being prescribed to cancer patients and other very
sick people. Are these drugs "cures?" No, in most cases they extend
life a couple of months, statistically, and cause nasty side-effects.
Who is the real snake oil salesman here?
This is why I post here, that is, to explain how real, basic science
can be applied to diet in the prevention of "disease" context. The
usual stuff you hear in the media are studies of a "surrogate markers"
that "correlate" with "endpoints." That kind of thing will never be
real science, but only a way to sell you drugs that are ineffective and
dangerous. Your body can take care of itself, if it's getting what it
needs and if toxins (such as highly polyunsaturated fat sources) are
avoided. There is no mystery, and no need for surrogate markers,
correlations, and endpoints either.
