Tom Davis are saying the conflicting science reports are what is wrong or are you saying the science reports you disagree with are wrong and the ones you agree with are right?
Science has always had competing theories. Especially on subjects that are complicated or all relevant influences are not known. Cosmology, for instance, is one area that is very theoretical because we don't have all the data and it is difficult to get. So, different theories are proffered from what we do know and then scientists tend to try to fit what evidence there is to their pet theory. That goes on until one theory or another prevails. Occasionally new data can prove one theory is correct but more commonly the competing theories all continue to live until and unless data proving them can be found or a large majority of scientists support one theory, which often still is proven wrong later. Other science has been researched to death and we know exactly which previous theory is correct or we know what the correct math should be applied to solve a problem in that area, etc.
I agree with all of that. What puzzles me is when people take a view that the research that validates their belief is true and research that contradicts their belief is false.
I'm saying that I don't believe any of them anymore. They spend billions of dollars doing research that culminates with a point of view that's adopted by 90% of the medical community. Then, a decade or two later, those same researchers come out and say exactly the opposite. For example: About 15 years ago an article in JAMA claimed the research showed that reducing cholesterol below certain levels reduced heart attack risk. The entire medical community bought into that point of view and started handing out statins (cholesterol lowering drugs) like popcorn. Now they say exactly the opposite -- high cholesterol alone is not a reason to take statin drugs because just reducing cholesterol doesn't increase life expectancy. Not only that, statins have side effects that decrease quality of life.
I agree that science has always had competing theories, but no one is making day-to-day health decisions on the outcome of cosmological theories. Medical research falls into an entirely different category because doctors and patients rely on that information, often resulting in life and death situations. Three major theories (salt, saturated fat, cholesterol) that have dominated the field of cardiovascular medicine for decades have been reversed recently. Are the new theories any better than the old theories? We have no way of knowing.
Germ theory has been around for over a century and stood the test of time. Much of the medical advice we get these days (eg, salt, saturated fat, cholesterol) is based upon 10-30 years of research. And when they go back and re-study these issues, they reverse their decisions. Medicine is a different category of science because doctors and patients make day-to-day life and death decisions based on the research. There are competing theories of quantum mechanics, but nobody is making life-and-death decisions based on the current research. If it turns out to be wrong, the only penalty is bruised egos. When medical researchers are wrong, people's lives are at stake.
I also noticed that the study (on salt) was not being taken seriously by the mainstream. We all need certain amounts of salt and fat to live. Too much will kill us. Just like PT said with water. To much in your system will kill you. I think that is all that has ever been said. If you can't control your diet to moderate these elements in your system then there is medication that will help control them but may have their own adverse consequences.
Fair enough. As far as diet and health goes, I think the oldest theory will prove to be the best one. (Don't eat too much.)
Or eat a variety of foods. Moderation in all things. And lastly, don't drink cheap booze, get the good stuff.