I'm with him on the connection of heart disease and sugar. The amount of sugar we as a society ingest is excessive. It can't be healthy. But I can't get behind the idea of an industry wide statin conspiracy. There's a lot of here-say in this article. If all the studies are wrong then the for and against studies are wrong equally. How can we even trust anything?
This seems to me to be a case of "It's true because I say it's true"
> The more I study science, the more I come to see how often fundamental facts end up being changed so that a profitable industry can be created
> Frequently, when an industry harms many people, it will create a scapegoat to get out of trouble.
I don't know if he is right or wrong, but he should know statements like that ring alarm bells. This is the kind of thing people who believe in apple cider vinegar and crystal healing say. Regardless of the actual truth of the matter in this particular case, it is far more rhetorically prudent to assume a more neutral language that at the minimum does not assume malice and conspiracies.
Edit:
> Thus, since there are so many vested interests behind the vaccine paradigm ...
I'm with him on the connection of heart disease and sugar. The amount of sugar we as a society ingest is excessive. It can't be healthy. But I can't get behind the idea of an industry wide statin conspiracy. There's a lot of here-say in this article. If all the studies are wrong then the for and against studies are wrong equally. How can we even trust anything?
This seems to me to be a case of "It's true because I say it's true"
> The more I study science, the more I come to see how often fundamental facts end up being changed so that a profitable industry can be created
> Frequently, when an industry harms many people, it will create a scapegoat to get out of trouble.
I don't know if he is right or wrong, but he should know statements like that ring alarm bells. This is the kind of thing people who believe in apple cider vinegar and crystal healing say. Regardless of the actual truth of the matter in this particular case, it is far more rhetorically prudent to assume a more neutral language that at the minimum does not assume malice and conspiracies.
Edit:
> Thus, since there are so many vested interests behind the vaccine paradigm ...
Ah ok here we go.