You probably already know about the latest and greatest nonsense from England, that has recently become one of the biggest manufacturers of junk science in the world. It is indeed good news, because it states that being fat is as bad for you as smoking.

Since it is not scientifically demonstrated that smoking is ‘bad’ for you, the logical conclusion is that there is nothing wrong about being fat. All there is against smoking is, in fact, epidemiological trash.

But the “study” does not stop there, because it would be too lame and not nearly scary enough: it says that if you drink you get cancer — so don’t drink at all; if you eat red meat and pork and bacon you get cancer — so do not eat red meat. If you do not exercise you get cancer — so exercise a lot and don’t ask yourself why athletes get cancer too, don’t you bloody dare! If you have salt you get cancer — so eat without it.

To “prevent” cancer you must not: smoke, eat almost any kind of red meat, drink, have salt, miss daily exercise – and you must watch your weight like a hawk – absolutely!

And of course, for all of the above, there is… “strong evidence”!

There is no “strong evidence” that any, all or any combination of those factors (or the abstention from those factors) limits or causes cancer. That is, of course, unless you consider multifactorial epidemiology science – although BY DEFINITION it cannot be science because it cannot establish causality.

What is left is the usual opinion of the “experts”, the feathered medicine men of the 21st century, who tell the tribes about the mysterious wonders of their knowledge, but behead anyone who dares asking for proof of what they say.

Of course smoking – again, never scientifically demonstrated to cause cancer in the first place – is the usual comparison stone for the epidemiological shysters: “Its key finding is that being fat is as bad for you as smoking” – the implication being that zero smoking prevents cancer. But the zero mentality of the nihilists does not stop there: remember that for the intellectual nihilist nothingness is health. “The experts say there is no safe level of drinking”. Of course not, did you expect otherwise? Furthermore, the “experts” establish the amount of food you have to eat, how, what, and when.

But if you want to test the certainty of their convictions, just ask them to guarantee to you that if you abstain from everything you will not get cancer – and see how fast they will talk around your question without an answer! Why? Because they speak with certainty, but they do not know. Read this carefully: "If people follow our recommendations, they can be confident they are following the best advice possible based on all the scientific research" – the “scientific” research being a huge meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. Meta-analyses of multifactorial epidemiological studies have a reputation for being the garbage of the trash, as they sum the errors of all the other studies.

On what grounds should we be confident in their advice, then? On the scientific grounds that they don’t have – or should we accept the: “Believe us although we can prove nothing. We are the ‘authority’, WE ARE SCIENCE”?

Scientific assertions are based on verifiable measures and on repeatable experiments, amongst other things, and none of that applies here.

This long article shows that the controversy on causality is far from over, but we may add that it won’t be for long: as for active smoking, passive smoking and global warming, soon we’ll hear that “the debate is over” because it was not there in the first place.

Those who cannot demonstrate but have the executive power, use their power as demonstration. Already the article speaks of “healthy towns” and mandatory behaviour control, to say nothing of mega-engineering projects: “Mr Johnson is calling for a wide-ranging approach across all Government departments in order to improve public health by changing the layout and design of towns.”

Mental delirium? You bet it is, but try them out! This is the social cost of elevating junk science multifactorial epidemiology (the flexible tool of the 21st century feathered men) to science. And you “ain’t seen nothing yet”: did you welcome smoking bans? Enjoy the rest!

As long as there is no POLITICAL, positive action against these junk scientists who are half way between gods and social engineers; as long as policies are built around their beliefs; as long as they can tap into unlimited public funding to produce junk science, the only certainty we have is economic collapse on the one hand, and political tyranny on the other.

Bon appètit.



Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder