Atkins Diet is dangerous pseudo-science

[ciphergoth]

The Atkins Diet is a pile of dangerous pseudo-science. Not that this comes as a surprise, but here's the word from Dr Susan Jebb of the Medical Research Council's Human Nutrition Research Centre.

(Note: questions about TrustFlow here will be deleted, post them in trustmetrics.)

Update: Post made friends-only. Thanks to babysimon for pointing out that vampwillow had invited people in atkins_uk to join the thread, resulting in some incredibly lunatic contributions. Update: Public again.

Comments

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

The MRC are deliberately encouraging a bad diet that makes people's health worse in return for memo pads from pharmecutical companies.

I can't think how to reply to this.

[babysimon]

Remember the memo pads have holes you can stick your pen in. They're not any old tat.

[satsumagirl]

It's not just pharma companies up to this. We have some very fetching nail files from a company who supplies our pressure relieving air mattresses!

[vampwillow]

There is a massive difference of substance between 'encouraging a bad diet' and 'not promoting a better diet'. Similarly, I'm not saying that something is done 'in return for memo pads' but that pharma companies would not engage in the substantial advertising and 'marketing' to end-prescribers (ie doctors) that they do if they did not believe they would increase their income from such activities.

If there was nothing in it for the pharma industry to place their product names in such locations they would not take part in such an activity. The fact that they do, and with such a high level of activitity, clearly demonstrates that they feel such an activity is financially beneficial to them.

Pharma companies make money, pay taxes, make products on which users pay additional taxes.

Basic foodstuffs (meat, fish, cheese) in this country and vat-free and do not represent additional income for the government.

The government funds various organisations for 'public' purposes.

You do the math!

[x-mass.livejournal.com]

i think I have a realtivly sane suggestion - its not a huge conspiracy - its not. What it is, is diffrent sides of teh same poliotical debate that is teh basis of all science. Science doesnt consist of one set of facts pushing out another set its about the power dynamics of who is in charge

For people on the Atkisn side we see ourselves as Galileo challenging the idea that the sung goes round the earth, teh MRC on the other hand see's us as phrenologist arguing that bumps on the head mean something. (that i belive that lots of Neuroscience is neophrenolgy is beside the point)

we challenge the existing order at the MRC, they are trying to repel us

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I've resisted thus far, but now you've actually compared yourself to Galileo I get to start talking about tinfoil hats. If there isn't an equivalent of Godwin's Law for Galileo then maybe it's time there was.

[x-mass.livejournal.com]

No I was describing how we percieve ourselves vs how atkisn is percived by other and using crude historical references to support it. I'm using crude references because i assume that your not a specialist in the history and philosphy of scince and medicine.

I could use something moer estorec but moer appropriate to teh situation but you might not know who and what i am talking about.

perhaps a good place to start this discussion is with say Latour or Feyerabend? you do know these philosphers dont you?

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

If you're going for some sort of national prize as a bullshit merchant I'll support your application. Your attempts at argument by intimidation are made all the more hilarious if you try to imagine how an MRC based around the ideas of Latour and Feyerabend might work. I can't wait to find out what entry from the encyclopaedia of fallacy we can expect from you next. No, hang on, I can.

[x-mass.livejournal.com]

hmm having your signature woudl help i supperose - how many years have you held the title for now?

Latour and feyerabend are philopshers of science, they are looking at how scinence is actually performed as opposed to the lies that scientist tell themsleves about how they arrive at their conclusions. If science was a liitle bit more aware of how it religiously follows ideas, if it didnt assume popper was right, it might find insights into the world a bit more easily.

The MRC can be good, it also has a tendancy to only do research that fits withing the existing paradigm - and attack anybody who questions otherwise

anyhow whatever