Is anyone else fed up with studies showing one thing, then another study reverse!


Question: Wellness letter for March 2008 now says large eggs do not raise blood cholesterol in most people and yolks might even be good for your heart.

Other examples:
Chocolate is bad for your heart. Wait, now dark Chocolate helps loosen artery walls.

Don't drink wine. Wait, red wine is good for you in moderation.

I was told not to eat nuts, now that's reversed.

I was told to take vitamin E supplements, wait they don't do any good.

In the 1970s women were told not to eat antacids such as Tums because they contained calcium which is not good for women.

1960s I was forbidden to drink water during summertime football practice because I could get cramps.

In fairness to the doctors, mine have confessed they are as frustrated as I am. They don't know what to tell their patients anymore.


Answers: Wellness letter for March 2008 now says large eggs do not raise blood cholesterol in most people and yolks might even be good for your heart.

Other examples:
Chocolate is bad for your heart. Wait, now dark Chocolate helps loosen artery walls.

Don't drink wine. Wait, red wine is good for you in moderation.

I was told not to eat nuts, now that's reversed.

I was told to take vitamin E supplements, wait they don't do any good.

In the 1970s women were told not to eat antacids such as Tums because they contained calcium which is not good for women.

1960s I was forbidden to drink water during summertime football practice because I could get cramps.

In fairness to the doctors, mine have confessed they are as frustrated as I am. They don't know what to tell their patients anymore.

If you understand how nutrition works, you then look at the people FUNDING the studies and you will find the hidden agenda...

Keep people on the drugs, because there is more money in a treatment.

Follow the money trail. How do I know? Look at these references:

http://www.naturalnews.com/021900.html

http://www.newswithviews.com/Richards/by...

http://www.naturalnews.com/021932.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinio...

http://www.rense.com/general76/fers.htm

http://www.worstpills.org/public/page.cf...

http://www.care2.com/news/member/9568053...

In testing a natural product, they can use a non affective molecule or overdose the mice with a synthetic vitamin or too much of a certain kind of food and make a biased conclusion with a blanket statement saying it is all inefective or causes you harm and these are usually funded by pharmaceuticals who want to sell you their drugs, whereas in contrasting study, the molecule is biologicaly active and they get results because the study was done correctly and the mice just live longer and look better.

In drug studies, they find out the drugs are causing the disease that they tout it cures, like cholestrol meds or hormone replacement therapies and or vioxx and they stop the studies half way because their people are actually deteriorating or dying... Yet, they still sell this c-r-a-p like hot cakes and fund people like Steven Barrett of Quack Watch to refute anything that is helping people to keep pushing their toxic, debilitating, addictive drugs.

That's how science works, buddy. They make mistakes and then they test it again and get different results until they either get it right, or they don't. I understand that you might be annoyed, but that's the way it is. You need to get used to it. Be grateful that there are people out there trying to figure this stuff out at all.

You are absolutely correct. Many studies today are funded by grants and have an agenda. Some do not use large enough sample populations, or simply the wrong sample populations. I'm with you. Do what you do in moderation. At last count, 100% of all people die. Most will die from something other than "old age" even if they live beyond the 70's.

The examples you cite such as not drinking water during football practice and women not eating Tums etc are not based on evidence. Some studies you have to take with a grain of salt and you really have to look at the QUALITY of the evidence that leads to that conclusion.

Your later statement about moderation really is the key.





The consumer health information on answer-health.com is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment for any medical conditions.
The answer content post by the user, if contains the copyright content please contact us, we will immediately remove it.
Copyright © 2007-2011 answer-health.com -   Terms of Use -   Contact us

Health Categories