What Linoleic Acid are people talking about. Decades ago I picked up that highly processed, usually involving very high temperatures, seed oils contain mostly Trans Trans Linoleic Acid found to provoke arterial lesions leading to arterial problems.
The talk at that time was that Cis Cis Linoleic Acid was the natural form which apparently did not create the same arterial issues.
Can it be the processing, including extreme high temperatures, that is the problem rather than seeds and their oils as such.???
Well spotted, Peter! The linoleic acid that is measured in the biomarker studies is 18:2 (nā6), otherwise denoted 18:2 cis-9,12. You are correct that partial hydrogenation of the naturally-occuring cis form of LA produces trans-fats which are strongly atherogenic; these trans-fats occurred at high levels in margarines and other processed foods in the 1960s. The studies most often cited by the 'seed oils are bad for you' crowd date from this era (i.e. the Sydney Diet Heart Study and the Minnesota Coronary Experiment), and I discussed them in https://robynchuter.substack.com/p/diving-down-the-low-carb-rabbit-hole-94c.
The studies that I cited in this article all date from the post-trans-fat era i.e. they're examining the effect of intake of the naturally-occurring cis form of LA.
That era, the 1960's onward was where I picked up the info on atherogenic aspects of trans trans linoleic acid. A lot of nonsense was batted about at that time about the health benefits of grains too often ignoring that grains are like many things, both good and bad depending upon the circumstance. Thanks for the feedback. I take the view that highly processed anything consumed may be harmful so needs study, long term for certain.
Very true re grains. There's a world of difference between the maize porridge eaten by Tanzanians, or sourdough bread made from freshly-milled wholemeal flour, and Cornflakes or Wonder White!!!!
And as the old Cornish saying goes "The answer lies in the soil" as the starting point for quality of grown food stuff, animal or vegetable. Poor soil condition can mean poor nutrients and especially beneficial bacteria often destroyed by chemicals. Then there is GMO to consider. Highly processed starts in the soil and the things we cultivate, seeds included.
Many thanks Robyn - I'm glad you summed up the evidence, or lack of, on the various aspects of the oils question because I tend to go cross eyed early in any conversation on the topic. Your well grounded opinion is much appreciated!
So very interesting, the only exemption I have encountered amongst the NOWFPB health gurus was at a cooking/biodynamic seminar at the Gawler foundation in the Yarra valley many years ago. They used cold pressed organic flaxseed oil (not for cooking) but as sprinkle on salads & vegetables to add ALA , as an inflammatory reducing food source.
I've always been leery of flaxseed oil because it oxidises so rapidly once extracted. I just whiz up flaxseeds in my Thermomix and sprinkle them over my morning oats.
Hi Robyn. As always I appreciate the way you meticulously analyze these studies. Iām not a fan of them because I know they can be manipulated, but usually meta analysis yields better results. As you said at the outset, fat is calorie dense and so seed oils donāt make sense as a source of nutrition. Lenoleic acid has been denigrated by the keto/carnivore community as, although an essential fatty acid, unhealthy. What is your take on the omega-6/omega-3 ratio, and do you think it had any impact on these studies? We are encouraged to increase consumption of fish in order to increase our Ī±-linolenic acid intake, mostly to compensate for the high amount of seed oils. Also, what is your take on the c:15 fad?
As for the flat earth debate, have any āobservationalā studies been done? Thereās this thing called an horizon, which essentially wouldnāt exist on a flat earth. Iām guessing that most flat earthers have never been far from home, or out at sea. Most flat earthers donāt believe in outer space or satellites, so then how do they explain GPS? If the earth was flat, you would lose your down under status.
I totally agree with you that meta-analyses are far more reliable than individual because a) there's a standardised process for assessing bias in the included studies and b) combining the results of individual studies helps to reduce distortions that might be present in those studies even if they're well-conducted (e.g. due to genetic features of particular populations).
The omega-6/omega-3 ratio has been a big focus of research for many years, and I myself used to think that it was an important metric. As the results of the large cohort studies have come in, it has become clear that this ratio isn't as significant as was believed. There's a terrific discussion of this topic on Simon Hill's (excellent) podcast, here: https://theproof.com/seed-oils-dangerous-or-misunderstood-bill-harris-phd-on-the-truth-about-omega-6-fats/.
Interestingly, the UK Biobank study on blood omega-6 levels and cancer (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.35226) did also include assessment of omega-3. While 14 of 19 site-specific cancers were inversely associated with omega-6% (i.e. higher plasma omega-6 was protective), only 4 were inversely associated with omega-3% and the risk of prostate cancer was HIGHER in men with more omega-3 in their plasma. And specifically, it was DHA% in plasma - i.e. the long-chain omega-3 that's derived from fish and other animal products, that was correlated with increased prostate cancer risk.
Objects appear smaller as they get further away due to the concept of perspective. This is because the angle of your field of vision subtended by the object (visual angle) decreases as the distance increases. In simpler terms, a distant object takes up a smaller portion of your field of view, making it appear smaller. Eventually distant objects form a horizon.
Ever wondered why the horizon always remains at eye-level, not matter at what height it is observed from?
GPS are land-based systems, as are satellite phones. Earlier navigational instruments such as the sextant, quadrant and astrolabe were all invented by flat-earthers to navigate a pre-GPS flat Earth.
Why would you guess that most flat-earthers have never been far from home or out at sea? What about spinning ballers, do they display the same symptoms?
You tossed this rebuttal aside but I think itās important to understand who is behind these studies. Gov subsidies at play. Lobbies. Politicized science. Data can kinda say what you want it to say. I just donāt know how much science is truly honest.
I agree that food lobbying and subsidies can skew research. For example, a systematic review of clinical trials on the effect of unprocessed red meat on cardiovascular disease risk (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40379522/) found that studies with conflicts of interest (authors who received funding from the red meat industry) were nearly 4 times more likely to report "Favorable/Neutral" outcomes compared with studies whose funding was independent of industry.
All studies published in peer-reviewed journals have funding and conflict of interest statements, so you can easily find this information which is, as you point out, extremely important.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses also use strict criteria for assessing risk of bias, and they include a listing of the bias assessment for each study.
Just to take two examples from the many studies cited in my article:
1) The RCT (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000291652302782X?via%3Dihub#s0100) which compared the effects of omega-6 from sunflower oil to the effects of saturated fat from butter, on inflammation and liver fat in people with abdominal obesity, was funded by the Swedish and Finnish governments, with no involvement from the food industry.
2) The UK Biobank study which found a small inverse relationship between blood linoleic acid levels and cancer (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.35226), was funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institute of Health. UK Biobank itself was established by the Wellcome Trust medical charity, the UK Medical Research Council, Department of Health, Scottish Government and the Northwest Regional Development Agency. No food industry money at work here.
A little more than industry-funded studies. A crowd-funding model for research funding would be ideal. But we don't have this yet at any real scale. Funding for research has to come from somewhere, and at least there are some checks and balances in the government grant-making process.
Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancetāone of the most prestigious medical journals in the worldāfinally admitted what independent researchers have been screaming for decades: The whole system is compromised. In his April 2015 editorial "What is medicine's 5 sigma?" Horton wrote: "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."
But Horton wasn't alone in this devastating assessment. Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicineāanother of the world's most prestigious medical publicationsādelivered an equally damning verdict: "It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines."
"Clinical research" refers to drug-, device- or procedure-based interventions, and it is indeed shot through with conflicts of interest. Some nutrition research is influenced by industry grants, but fortunately a far larger proportion draws its funding from non-industry sources - especially the cohort studies which I drew upon heavily for this article.
However, Horton was referring to āscientific literatureā, not just clinical research. Judging by the famous food pyramid, nutrition research fares no better than clinical research. In the USA, the largest funder of nutrition research is the NIH, a distant second is the USDA. How much trust do we have in those orgs? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9361736/ Health in the USA has been in steady decline which seems to confirm Hortonās observations. How about private sector nutrition researchers, would they ever publish data that conflicted with their companyās marketing dept, doubtful.
Over 90% of the US population isn't following the dietary guidelines (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK469833/) so it's a bit of a stretch to blame them for the declining health of Americans.
Seed oils are themselves ultra-processed 'food'. The extraction processes are harsh industrial processes that use toxic solvents. It's delusional to think that seeds are just squeezed to remove 'pure' oil.
Regarding the curvature of water, photos showing curvature are taken with fish-eye lenses. It has been proven beyond all doubt, by engineers and scientists using lasers, that large bodies of water show no curvature over distances of up to 100 kilometres. Here you can easily calculate the expected curvature of a spherical Earth over any distance: https://earthcurvature.com/ High altitude videos taken without fisheye lenses also show no curvature.
I did not claim that "seeds are just squeezed to remove 'pure' oil" and I mentioned the use of solvents to extract these oils, in the article. While I'm not keen on consuming such products (as I also mentioned in the article), the fact remains that people who eat them do NOT have worse health outcomes than those who don't. I'm interested in outcomes data, not speculation on mechanisms.
Re "It has been proven beyond all doubt, by engineers and scientists using lasers, that large bodies of water show no curvature over distances of up to 100 kilometres", these conclusions do not account for atmospheric refraction (https://flatearth.ws/laser).
I never said that was your claim, I was just making the point because some people seem to believe oil is squeezed from seeds. It doesnāt help that manufactures often make āpure oilā or ā99%ā claims. A more accurate description would be āmanufactured seed resinā rather than āseed oilā.
I wonder what is the shelf life of seed oils. Iāve seen warnings that they degrade very quickly after manufacture (turn rancid), perhaps they contain added preservatives.
I am sure there are photos showing curvature without a fisheye lens, some are photo-shopped or pure CGI. Amateur high altitude balloon video images versus NASA video images from the same altitude differ, NASAās show curvature and the amateur ones show no curvature. There are plenty of such videos on the net, but likely none on the website you have referenced. A lot of govt funding goes into āde-bunkingā flat-earth claims, whereas none is given to debunking spinning ball claims. Similar to how funding is available to prove the effectiveness of vaccines, but little/none to disprove it. A LOT of institutional money depends on keeping the ball spinning.
Atmospheric refraction is minuscule, itās not a known constant and does not follow the supposed curvature of the Earth. Various military targeting lasers use a pulsed beam with a straightness to within a few centimetres over 30 kilometres, even in harsh weather conditions. Also, they do not require calibration for elevation angle. You can imagine firing ordnance from the ground to an overhead object, to hit that object the targeting beam must be perfectly straight. No need to take my word for it, just ask a laser manufacturer or two, military and construction industries use long range lasers, ask them for specifications on operational beam straightness.
To reiterate the point I've made previously with respect to extraction methods, the fact remains that people who eat seed oils do NOT have worse health outcomes than those who don't. I'm interested in outcomes data, not speculation on mechanisms.
Did you by any chance hear about the expedition to the Antarctic that was organised by Will Duffy, to show Flat Earthers the 24-hour sun that they claimed could not exist? If not, it's worth watching this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsETzrRr3is. Ignore the sarcastic tone of the presenter if you can, and just pay attention to the reactions of former Flat Earthers to having their beliefs disproven by the evidence of their own eyes.
I have a strong suspicion that Flat Earth is an operation mounted by the cabal, as part of their ceaseless divide-and-conquer strategy.
Yes I saw Duffy's experiment, it shows good evidence for there being 24 hour sun in some part of the world. I believe it was he who suggested this would prove the world is ball-shaped.
It's more likely the ball-earth model to be a cabal operation, a lot of money and effort are being spent to uphold it. (flat-eathers could not afford to do a Duffy experiment). On the other side, the flat-earth concept has zero funding. Lasers do prove beyond any doubt that Earth is not spherical or ball-shaped (as do radio waves). Light does not bend by the exact same degree as Earth's curvature and I'm sure you do accept that. If it did, then it would have been written throughout history books as a major discovery.
Aside from military field applications, measuring and alignment lasers used in nautical and aerospace engineering and machining do not have beams that bend according to earth's curvature. Or are we to assume that only the lasers used in field trials to prove no water curvature will bend? Perhaps all ships, planes, buildings, large components are all actually curved to the same degree as the lasers used to make them? I doubt that is the case.
In 1901 Marconi, much to his surprise (also to many others) proved that he could transmit a morse code radio signal across the Atlantic. His signal transmission, firstly tested over land, was unable to penetrate hills or other obstacles. But it could transmit right across the Atlantic. The surprise came because on a ball-shaped Earth, this should have been impossible. About a year later, the theory of the Ionosphere was born. This could satisfy the ball Earth theory while accomodating Marconi's Atlantic success. The ionosphere was claimed to reflect all radio waves and later supposedly proven in the 1920's (who knows how). A couple of problems, Marconi was unable to transmit across any mountain range by reflecting radiowaves off the ionosphere. Secondly, if an ionosphere did exist as purported, then it proves nobody has ever communicated with anyone from Earth to outerspace.
I always recommend people to begin with an honest review of the Apollo lunar landings because it's easier to see the scale of deception in those events as a step to understanding that Earth is not a spinning water covered ball. A universally accepted and well-known concept in physics is the inverse square law of light, this alone totally disproves that anyone was ever standing on the moon. I don't think anyone who honestly wishes to know the truth could watch this 40 minute video and ever believe the Apollo missions were real: https://rumble.com/v20h2rq-the-moon-landing-hoax-by-taboo-conspiracy.html
I reached out to Ted Steele to see if he knew any astrophysicists or other scientists whose careers are based on having accurate knowledge of the cosmos, who would be willing to address these types of arguments. This was his reply, and I will leave the discussion here:
"As to 'Flat Earth' that would be difficult to rustle up any serious scientist to rebut and refute, given one has to be a logical thinker and susceptible to understanding objective scientific evidence, and accepting that evidence ( it is hard enough for me to discuss the already objective evidence for Panspermia, but the refusal by opponents to debate that issue is because they have no answer to such evidence - I discovered that for myself a few years ago ( at that point, for me, they have checked out of the scientific enterprise and growth of scientific knowledge). I do not know any scientist who would discuss āFlat Earthā seriously. I personally would find it first incredulous that such people exist and then having to engage in a rational discussion would frustrate me no end over basic accepted knowledge - I would view it as a complete waste of my time ( when you are confronted with evidence that contradicts your theory you must change your mind and the theory). The scientific battle for a spherical Earth and all other well-formed celestial bodies ( as spheres) was fought and won at least 500 years ago if not earlier e.g. the great navigators circumnavigating the world returning to their place of departure , etc. So I cannot help you on that."
Similar response when trying to find a serious doctor employed by the establishment to discuss vaccine adverse events, career limiting move.
No mention of the curvature of water in this reply? This is the problem when asking simple questions such as, 'why is there no measurable curvature of water?'. The response will be, 'no serious scientist would even respond to such a question' or 'are you a flat Earther' or similar. Why not just provide an honest response? We have a repeatable, measurable, easily accessible way for anyone to disprove the curvature of water, but when mentioned the heads go in the sand. Why would we need an astro-physicist to understand that lasers prove large bodies of water do not curve?
Have you read āDark Caloriesā by Cate Shanahan? I have and it convinced me to avoid at least what she calls āthe hateful eightā (canola, corn, cottonseed, grape-seed, rice-bran, safflower, soy, and sunflower). She presents a credible (to me) history and refers to several studies. There are 41 pages of notes (small font). She's hopeless with numbers, seemingly without realizing it, and, judging by one fairly recent article/post I stumbled upon, has a tendency to be triumphalist, which does impugn her credibility somewhat. However, I was already convinced that the maligning of dietary saturated fats was unjustified, having, among other things, encountered Gary Taubes's work several years ago, which (partly) revealed the whole fraud infrastructure of nutritional studies, so it will take more than the studies you cite to convince me that seed oil is benign.
No, I haven't read 'Dark Calories' and I have no interest in reading popular books on nutrition; I stick to the research conducted by people who are not innumerate.
"What if it's all been a big fat lie? It has ... and Gary was one of the biggest liars!
On July 7, 2002, the New York Times featured an article by freelance writer Gary Taubes. Titled What if itās all been a big FAT Lie?, it read like a giant infomercial for Atkins[1]. Indeed, Taubes had become an enthusiastic low-carb acolyte after reading Dr Atkins New Diet Revolution and being thoroughly swayed by the late doctorās exuberant claims for low-carb dieting. Taubes himself admitted that reading Atkins' book was a ārevelationā for him.
The thesis of Taubesā NYT article was that the low-fat fad had failed, and in fact had made us fatter and more diabetic, something that a lot of other commentators had already stated.
What was truly controversial about the article was that Taubes quoted a number of prominent researchers and academics who ā once staunch opponents ā now appeared to be supporting the Atkins Diet. If the article were to be believed, it looked like the American medical establishment's worst nightmare was starting to come true: "They spend 30 years ridiculing Robert Atkins, author of the phenomenally-best-selling ''Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution'' and ''Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution,'' accusing the Manhattan doctor of quackery and fraud, only to discover that the unrepentant Atkins was right all along." According to Taubes, āInfluential researchers are beginning to embrace the medical heresy that maybe Dr. Atkins was rightā.
Among these former orthodox stalwarts now allegedly supporting Atkins were Gerald Reaven, John Farquhar, George Blackburn, Walter Willett, and Richard Veech. They did indeed speak to Taubes, but after his article appeared in the NYT, they were all dismayed at how he'd misquoted and misrepresented them in order to make it appear they supported his pro-Atkins thesis[2,3].
āHe knows how to spin a yarn,ā said Barbara Rolls, an obesity researcher at Pennsylvania State University. āWhat frightens me," she said of Taubes, "is that he picks and chooses his facts.ā Taubes interviewed her for some six hours, and she sent him āa huge bundle of papers,ā which he simply brushed aside. āIf the facts donāt fit in with his yarn, he ignores them,ā she said[4].
"I was greatly offended by how Gary Taubes tricked us all into coming across as supporters of the Atkins diet," Farquhar wrote in an e-mail he broadcast to reporters and to colleagues who were stunned he might actually hold the beliefs Taubes attributed to him. "We are against the Atkins Diet," he wrote, speaking for himself and Reaven[4].
As a backlash formed against Taubes, he complained bitterly to the New York Observer in November 2002 that he was "being attacked by sleazebags."[4] That's a rather precious accusation, coming from someone who clearly misquoted and misrepresented others in order to bolster his own preconceived agenda."
In short, Taubes is a liar, a fraud and a scammer. If you're intent on following his dietary advice, go right ahead, but caveat emptor.
Thanks for long reply and links, which, I will try to check out. I have much more to say in response but I doubt I'll have time to get to it.
By the way, I've come across your name before and something tells me you're in Sydney. If so, do you want to meet up some time? Easier to have an exchange that way.
I fled Sydney in 2019, having lived there for my whole life. Just couldn't stand the traffic, density and bad attitudes anymore! I live in rural Queensland now.
What Linoleic Acid are people talking about. Decades ago I picked up that highly processed, usually involving very high temperatures, seed oils contain mostly Trans Trans Linoleic Acid found to provoke arterial lesions leading to arterial problems.
The talk at that time was that Cis Cis Linoleic Acid was the natural form which apparently did not create the same arterial issues.
Can it be the processing, including extreme high temperatures, that is the problem rather than seeds and their oils as such.???
Well spotted, Peter! The linoleic acid that is measured in the biomarker studies is 18:2 (nā6), otherwise denoted 18:2 cis-9,12. You are correct that partial hydrogenation of the naturally-occuring cis form of LA produces trans-fats which are strongly atherogenic; these trans-fats occurred at high levels in margarines and other processed foods in the 1960s. The studies most often cited by the 'seed oils are bad for you' crowd date from this era (i.e. the Sydney Diet Heart Study and the Minnesota Coronary Experiment), and I discussed them in https://robynchuter.substack.com/p/diving-down-the-low-carb-rabbit-hole-94c.
The studies that I cited in this article all date from the post-trans-fat era i.e. they're examining the effect of intake of the naturally-occurring cis form of LA.
That era, the 1960's onward was where I picked up the info on atherogenic aspects of trans trans linoleic acid. A lot of nonsense was batted about at that time about the health benefits of grains too often ignoring that grains are like many things, both good and bad depending upon the circumstance. Thanks for the feedback. I take the view that highly processed anything consumed may be harmful so needs study, long term for certain.
Very true re grains. There's a world of difference between the maize porridge eaten by Tanzanians, or sourdough bread made from freshly-milled wholemeal flour, and Cornflakes or Wonder White!!!!
And as the old Cornish saying goes "The answer lies in the soil" as the starting point for quality of grown food stuff, animal or vegetable. Poor soil condition can mean poor nutrients and especially beneficial bacteria often destroyed by chemicals. Then there is GMO to consider. Highly processed starts in the soil and the things we cultivate, seeds included.
100%!
Many thanks Robyn - I'm glad you summed up the evidence, or lack of, on the various aspects of the oils question because I tend to go cross eyed early in any conversation on the topic. Your well grounded opinion is much appreciated!
Glad it was helpful to you!
So very interesting, the only exemption I have encountered amongst the NOWFPB health gurus was at a cooking/biodynamic seminar at the Gawler foundation in the Yarra valley many years ago. They used cold pressed organic flaxseed oil (not for cooking) but as sprinkle on salads & vegetables to add ALA , as an inflammatory reducing food source.
I've always been leery of flaxseed oil because it oxidises so rapidly once extracted. I just whiz up flaxseeds in my Thermomix and sprinkle them over my morning oats.
Thatās what I do too. Thank you for your reply!
Hi Robyn. As always I appreciate the way you meticulously analyze these studies. Iām not a fan of them because I know they can be manipulated, but usually meta analysis yields better results. As you said at the outset, fat is calorie dense and so seed oils donāt make sense as a source of nutrition. Lenoleic acid has been denigrated by the keto/carnivore community as, although an essential fatty acid, unhealthy. What is your take on the omega-6/omega-3 ratio, and do you think it had any impact on these studies? We are encouraged to increase consumption of fish in order to increase our Ī±-linolenic acid intake, mostly to compensate for the high amount of seed oils. Also, what is your take on the c:15 fad?
As for the flat earth debate, have any āobservationalā studies been done? Thereās this thing called an horizon, which essentially wouldnāt exist on a flat earth. Iām guessing that most flat earthers have never been far from home, or out at sea. Most flat earthers donāt believe in outer space or satellites, so then how do they explain GPS? If the earth was flat, you would lose your down under status.
I totally agree with you that meta-analyses are far more reliable than individual because a) there's a standardised process for assessing bias in the included studies and b) combining the results of individual studies helps to reduce distortions that might be present in those studies even if they're well-conducted (e.g. due to genetic features of particular populations).
The omega-6/omega-3 ratio has been a big focus of research for many years, and I myself used to think that it was an important metric. As the results of the large cohort studies have come in, it has become clear that this ratio isn't as significant as was believed. There's a terrific discussion of this topic on Simon Hill's (excellent) podcast, here: https://theproof.com/seed-oils-dangerous-or-misunderstood-bill-harris-phd-on-the-truth-about-omega-6-fats/.
Interestingly, the UK Biobank study on blood omega-6 levels and cancer (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.35226) did also include assessment of omega-3. While 14 of 19 site-specific cancers were inversely associated with omega-6% (i.e. higher plasma omega-6 was protective), only 4 were inversely associated with omega-3% and the risk of prostate cancer was HIGHER in men with more omega-3 in their plasma. And specifically, it was DHA% in plasma - i.e. the long-chain omega-3 that's derived from fish and other animal products, that was correlated with increased prostate cancer risk.
As for C:15:0, the claims made are far out in advance of the research evidence (as you probably suspected). Once again, Simon Hill has an excellent interview on this: https://theproof.com/is-this-supplement-legitimate-science-of-fatty15-and-c15-bill-harris-phd/
Objects appear smaller as they get further away due to the concept of perspective. This is because the angle of your field of vision subtended by the object (visual angle) decreases as the distance increases. In simpler terms, a distant object takes up a smaller portion of your field of view, making it appear smaller. Eventually distant objects form a horizon.
Ever wondered why the horizon always remains at eye-level, not matter at what height it is observed from?
GPS are land-based systems, as are satellite phones. Earlier navigational instruments such as the sextant, quadrant and astrolabe were all invented by flat-earthers to navigate a pre-GPS flat Earth.
Why would you guess that most flat-earthers have never been far from home or out at sea? What about spinning ballers, do they display the same symptoms?
You tossed this rebuttal aside but I think itās important to understand who is behind these studies. Gov subsidies at play. Lobbies. Politicized science. Data can kinda say what you want it to say. I just donāt know how much science is truly honest.
I agree that food lobbying and subsidies can skew research. For example, a systematic review of clinical trials on the effect of unprocessed red meat on cardiovascular disease risk (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40379522/) found that studies with conflicts of interest (authors who received funding from the red meat industry) were nearly 4 times more likely to report "Favorable/Neutral" outcomes compared with studies whose funding was independent of industry.
All studies published in peer-reviewed journals have funding and conflict of interest statements, so you can easily find this information which is, as you point out, extremely important.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses also use strict criteria for assessing risk of bias, and they include a listing of the bias assessment for each study.
Just to take two examples from the many studies cited in my article:
1) The RCT (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000291652302782X?via%3Dihub#s0100) which compared the effects of omega-6 from sunflower oil to the effects of saturated fat from butter, on inflammation and liver fat in people with abdominal obesity, was funded by the Swedish and Finnish governments, with no involvement from the food industry.
2) The UK Biobank study which found a small inverse relationship between blood linoleic acid levels and cancer (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.35226), was funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institute of Health. UK Biobank itself was established by the Wellcome Trust medical charity, the UK Medical Research Council, Department of Health, Scottish Government and the Northwest Regional Development Agency. No food industry money at work here.
Are you implying that we can trust government funded studies?
A little more than industry-funded studies. A crowd-funding model for research funding would be ideal. But we don't have this yet at any real scale. Funding for research has to come from somewhere, and at least there are some checks and balances in the government grant-making process.
Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancetāone of the most prestigious medical journals in the worldāfinally admitted what independent researchers have been screaming for decades: The whole system is compromised. In his April 2015 editorial "What is medicine's 5 sigma?" Horton wrote: "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."
But Horton wasn't alone in this devastating assessment. Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicineāanother of the world's most prestigious medical publicationsādelivered an equally damning verdict: "It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines."
"Clinical research" refers to drug-, device- or procedure-based interventions, and it is indeed shot through with conflicts of interest. Some nutrition research is influenced by industry grants, but fortunately a far larger proportion draws its funding from non-industry sources - especially the cohort studies which I drew upon heavily for this article.
However, Horton was referring to āscientific literatureā, not just clinical research. Judging by the famous food pyramid, nutrition research fares no better than clinical research. In the USA, the largest funder of nutrition research is the NIH, a distant second is the USDA. How much trust do we have in those orgs? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9361736/ Health in the USA has been in steady decline which seems to confirm Hortonās observations. How about private sector nutrition researchers, would they ever publish data that conflicted with their companyās marketing dept, doubtful.
Much of what is written about the development of the original food pyramid by the likes of Gary Taubes and his plagiarist-in-chief, Nina Teichholz, is complete bollocks. Anthony Colpo has written some terrific articles on Taubes' loose relationship with the truth, e.g. https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/breaking-news-taubes-own-study-shows-insulin-obesity-theory-is-false?utm_source=publication-search
Over 90% of the US population isn't following the dietary guidelines (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK469833/) so it's a bit of a stretch to blame them for the declining health of Americans.
Seed oils are themselves ultra-processed 'food'. The extraction processes are harsh industrial processes that use toxic solvents. It's delusional to think that seeds are just squeezed to remove 'pure' oil.
Regarding the curvature of water, photos showing curvature are taken with fish-eye lenses. It has been proven beyond all doubt, by engineers and scientists using lasers, that large bodies of water show no curvature over distances of up to 100 kilometres. Here you can easily calculate the expected curvature of a spherical Earth over any distance: https://earthcurvature.com/ High altitude videos taken without fisheye lenses also show no curvature.
I did not claim that "seeds are just squeezed to remove 'pure' oil" and I mentioned the use of solvents to extract these oils, in the article. While I'm not keen on consuming such products (as I also mentioned in the article), the fact remains that people who eat them do NOT have worse health outcomes than those who don't. I'm interested in outcomes data, not speculation on mechanisms.
It is not true that all photos showing curvature are taken with fish-eye lenses, as explained at https://flatearth.ws/c/fisheye and https://flatearth.ws/high-altitude-balloon.
Re "It has been proven beyond all doubt, by engineers and scientists using lasers, that large bodies of water show no curvature over distances of up to 100 kilometres", these conclusions do not account for atmospheric refraction (https://flatearth.ws/laser).
I never said that was your claim, I was just making the point because some people seem to believe oil is squeezed from seeds. It doesnāt help that manufactures often make āpure oilā or ā99%ā claims. A more accurate description would be āmanufactured seed resinā rather than āseed oilā.
I wonder what is the shelf life of seed oils. Iāve seen warnings that they degrade very quickly after manufacture (turn rancid), perhaps they contain added preservatives.
I am sure there are photos showing curvature without a fisheye lens, some are photo-shopped or pure CGI. Amateur high altitude balloon video images versus NASA video images from the same altitude differ, NASAās show curvature and the amateur ones show no curvature. There are plenty of such videos on the net, but likely none on the website you have referenced. A lot of govt funding goes into āde-bunkingā flat-earth claims, whereas none is given to debunking spinning ball claims. Similar to how funding is available to prove the effectiveness of vaccines, but little/none to disprove it. A LOT of institutional money depends on keeping the ball spinning.
Atmospheric refraction is minuscule, itās not a known constant and does not follow the supposed curvature of the Earth. Various military targeting lasers use a pulsed beam with a straightness to within a few centimetres over 30 kilometres, even in harsh weather conditions. Also, they do not require calibration for elevation angle. You can imagine firing ordnance from the ground to an overhead object, to hit that object the targeting beam must be perfectly straight. No need to take my word for it, just ask a laser manufacturer or two, military and construction industries use long range lasers, ask them for specifications on operational beam straightness.
To reiterate the point I've made previously with respect to extraction methods, the fact remains that people who eat seed oils do NOT have worse health outcomes than those who don't. I'm interested in outcomes data, not speculation on mechanisms.
Did you by any chance hear about the expedition to the Antarctic that was organised by Will Duffy, to show Flat Earthers the 24-hour sun that they claimed could not exist? If not, it's worth watching this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsETzrRr3is. Ignore the sarcastic tone of the presenter if you can, and just pay attention to the reactions of former Flat Earthers to having their beliefs disproven by the evidence of their own eyes.
I have a strong suspicion that Flat Earth is an operation mounted by the cabal, as part of their ceaseless divide-and-conquer strategy.
Yes I saw Duffy's experiment, it shows good evidence for there being 24 hour sun in some part of the world. I believe it was he who suggested this would prove the world is ball-shaped.
It's more likely the ball-earth model to be a cabal operation, a lot of money and effort are being spent to uphold it. (flat-eathers could not afford to do a Duffy experiment). On the other side, the flat-earth concept has zero funding. Lasers do prove beyond any doubt that Earth is not spherical or ball-shaped (as do radio waves). Light does not bend by the exact same degree as Earth's curvature and I'm sure you do accept that. If it did, then it would have been written throughout history books as a major discovery.
Aside from military field applications, measuring and alignment lasers used in nautical and aerospace engineering and machining do not have beams that bend according to earth's curvature. Or are we to assume that only the lasers used in field trials to prove no water curvature will bend? Perhaps all ships, planes, buildings, large components are all actually curved to the same degree as the lasers used to make them? I doubt that is the case.
In 1901 Marconi, much to his surprise (also to many others) proved that he could transmit a morse code radio signal across the Atlantic. His signal transmission, firstly tested over land, was unable to penetrate hills or other obstacles. But it could transmit right across the Atlantic. The surprise came because on a ball-shaped Earth, this should have been impossible. About a year later, the theory of the Ionosphere was born. This could satisfy the ball Earth theory while accomodating Marconi's Atlantic success. The ionosphere was claimed to reflect all radio waves and later supposedly proven in the 1920's (who knows how). A couple of problems, Marconi was unable to transmit across any mountain range by reflecting radiowaves off the ionosphere. Secondly, if an ionosphere did exist as purported, then it proves nobody has ever communicated with anyone from Earth to outerspace.
I always recommend people to begin with an honest review of the Apollo lunar landings because it's easier to see the scale of deception in those events as a step to understanding that Earth is not a spinning water covered ball. A universally accepted and well-known concept in physics is the inverse square law of light, this alone totally disproves that anyone was ever standing on the moon. I don't think anyone who honestly wishes to know the truth could watch this 40 minute video and ever believe the Apollo missions were real: https://rumble.com/v20h2rq-the-moon-landing-hoax-by-taboo-conspiracy.html
I reached out to Ted Steele to see if he knew any astrophysicists or other scientists whose careers are based on having accurate knowledge of the cosmos, who would be willing to address these types of arguments. This was his reply, and I will leave the discussion here:
"As to 'Flat Earth' that would be difficult to rustle up any serious scientist to rebut and refute, given one has to be a logical thinker and susceptible to understanding objective scientific evidence, and accepting that evidence ( it is hard enough for me to discuss the already objective evidence for Panspermia, but the refusal by opponents to debate that issue is because they have no answer to such evidence - I discovered that for myself a few years ago ( at that point, for me, they have checked out of the scientific enterprise and growth of scientific knowledge). I do not know any scientist who would discuss āFlat Earthā seriously. I personally would find it first incredulous that such people exist and then having to engage in a rational discussion would frustrate me no end over basic accepted knowledge - I would view it as a complete waste of my time ( when you are confronted with evidence that contradicts your theory you must change your mind and the theory). The scientific battle for a spherical Earth and all other well-formed celestial bodies ( as spheres) was fought and won at least 500 years ago if not earlier e.g. the great navigators circumnavigating the world returning to their place of departure , etc. So I cannot help you on that."
Similar response when trying to find a serious doctor employed by the establishment to discuss vaccine adverse events, career limiting move.
No mention of the curvature of water in this reply? This is the problem when asking simple questions such as, 'why is there no measurable curvature of water?'. The response will be, 'no serious scientist would even respond to such a question' or 'are you a flat Earther' or similar. Why not just provide an honest response? We have a repeatable, measurable, easily accessible way for anyone to disprove the curvature of water, but when mentioned the heads go in the sand. Why would we need an astro-physicist to understand that lasers prove large bodies of water do not curve?
Have you read āDark Caloriesā by Cate Shanahan? I have and it convinced me to avoid at least what she calls āthe hateful eightā (canola, corn, cottonseed, grape-seed, rice-bran, safflower, soy, and sunflower). She presents a credible (to me) history and refers to several studies. There are 41 pages of notes (small font). She's hopeless with numbers, seemingly without realizing it, and, judging by one fairly recent article/post I stumbled upon, has a tendency to be triumphalist, which does impugn her credibility somewhat. However, I was already convinced that the maligning of dietary saturated fats was unjustified, having, among other things, encountered Gary Taubes's work several years ago, which (partly) revealed the whole fraud infrastructure of nutritional studies, so it will take more than the studies you cite to convince me that seed oil is benign.
No, I haven't read 'Dark Calories' and I have no interest in reading popular books on nutrition; I stick to the research conducted by people who are not innumerate.
As for Gary Taubes, Anthony Colpo has written numerous articles about him which are well worth reading: https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/breaking-news-taubes-own-study-shows-insulin-obesity-theory-is-false, https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/nusi-the-non-profit-organization-that-has-netted-gary-taubes-peter-attia-over-1800000, https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/the-art-of-bullshit-part-1-gary-taubes-and-nusi, just to get you started. Quoting from that first article, 'BREAKING NEWS: Taubes' Own Study Shows Insulin-Obesity Theory is False!',
"What if it's all been a big fat lie? It has ... and Gary was one of the biggest liars!
On July 7, 2002, the New York Times featured an article by freelance writer Gary Taubes. Titled What if itās all been a big FAT Lie?, it read like a giant infomercial for Atkins[1]. Indeed, Taubes had become an enthusiastic low-carb acolyte after reading Dr Atkins New Diet Revolution and being thoroughly swayed by the late doctorās exuberant claims for low-carb dieting. Taubes himself admitted that reading Atkins' book was a ārevelationā for him.
The thesis of Taubesā NYT article was that the low-fat fad had failed, and in fact had made us fatter and more diabetic, something that a lot of other commentators had already stated.
What was truly controversial about the article was that Taubes quoted a number of prominent researchers and academics who ā once staunch opponents ā now appeared to be supporting the Atkins Diet. If the article were to be believed, it looked like the American medical establishment's worst nightmare was starting to come true: "They spend 30 years ridiculing Robert Atkins, author of the phenomenally-best-selling ''Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution'' and ''Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution,'' accusing the Manhattan doctor of quackery and fraud, only to discover that the unrepentant Atkins was right all along." According to Taubes, āInfluential researchers are beginning to embrace the medical heresy that maybe Dr. Atkins was rightā.
Among these former orthodox stalwarts now allegedly supporting Atkins were Gerald Reaven, John Farquhar, George Blackburn, Walter Willett, and Richard Veech. They did indeed speak to Taubes, but after his article appeared in the NYT, they were all dismayed at how he'd misquoted and misrepresented them in order to make it appear they supported his pro-Atkins thesis[2,3].
āHe knows how to spin a yarn,ā said Barbara Rolls, an obesity researcher at Pennsylvania State University. āWhat frightens me," she said of Taubes, "is that he picks and chooses his facts.ā Taubes interviewed her for some six hours, and she sent him āa huge bundle of papers,ā which he simply brushed aside. āIf the facts donāt fit in with his yarn, he ignores them,ā she said[4].
"I was greatly offended by how Gary Taubes tricked us all into coming across as supporters of the Atkins diet," Farquhar wrote in an e-mail he broadcast to reporters and to colleagues who were stunned he might actually hold the beliefs Taubes attributed to him. "We are against the Atkins Diet," he wrote, speaking for himself and Reaven[4].
As a backlash formed against Taubes, he complained bitterly to the New York Observer in November 2002 that he was "being attacked by sleazebags."[4] That's a rather precious accusation, coming from someone who clearly misquoted and misrepresented others in order to bolster his own preconceived agenda."
In short, Taubes is a liar, a fraud and a scammer. If you're intent on following his dietary advice, go right ahead, but caveat emptor.
Thanks for long reply and links, which, I will try to check out. I have much more to say in response but I doubt I'll have time to get to it.
By the way, I've come across your name before and something tells me you're in Sydney. If so, do you want to meet up some time? Easier to have an exchange that way.
Incidentally, I'm in the middle of reading this (another āpopularā yarn?): https://open.substack.com/pub/pierrekory/p/the-persecutions-of-the-pioneers
I fled Sydney in 2019, having lived there for my whole life. Just couldn't stand the traffic, density and bad attitudes anymore! I live in rural Queensland now.
Joseph R Hibbeln, just appointed to the NEW ACIP by RFK Jr. shares your keen interest in omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids.
His interest seems to be primarily in omega-3 rather than omega-6.