Oct 22, 2008 at 15:51:25
“I appreciate the comments--favorable or not--because I hope to encourage more discussion on this really serious problem that we all face, namely, our state of health and its disastrous costs. I also must emphasize, however, after 50-plus years in the biomedical research and policy communities, I came to understand that the concept of nutrition is not what I was taught nor what almost everyone now believes. Thus, using traditional arguments in this discussion often don't apply--at least for me.
For example, randomized clinical trials have done more harm to our understanding of nutrition than any other research methodology. This research strategy is not the 'gold standard' that is often told. Testing the benefits of a truly nutritional intervention is not double blinded, nor even blinded. But more importantly, its testing of single nutrient effects is grossly out of context, causing more noise than good information. Assuming that we can identify THE mechanism explaining a cause-effect relationship is also a gross oversimplification. Relying on human epidemiology methodology also is an oversimplification that usually gives more confusion than clarification. Too often, the study cohorts have insufficient range of exposure that further compromises the interpretation of results.
These are only a few of the experimental methodology concerns that I have. Others have to do with the long time myths that we automatically assume without question, thus making it difficult to challenge them without a whole lot of ill informed commentators who only believe the myths without question.”