I have 50 years experience in biochemistry.
I have refuted the lies from this anti-science website RationalWiki
It is telling that the wiki authors here don't understand that omega-3 and omega-6 are extremely common molecules that occur in all foods and living things, not just fish. I don't entirelly agree with Peat's ideas on this topic, but RationalWiki couldn't be more wrong about what they actually are- so I will clarify a bit. However, I can't emphasize enough how you cannot possibly understand any of this unless you've at least studied organic chemistry and biochemistry.
These chemically unstable unsaturated fatty acids that oxidize very easily, so need extensive antioxidant protection.
Ray Peat is of the view that a high intake of these incorporated into tissues impairs mitochondrial function (essential for oxidative metabolism), and become oxidatively damaged, resulting in lipid peroxides that damage other cellular machinery- so they should be reduced as much as possible.
He does think they are not essential at all, based on animal studies where rats seemed to survive well on carefully controlled laboratory fat free diets, and the fact that mice and humans lack the metabolic pathways to synthesize these fats on their own. Which seems pretty convincing, but also not very important in my view, as there are no foods free of them outside of a laboratory.
The mainstream view on these fats is that they do both get metabolized into inflammatory prostaglandins, and that the ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 is important, because too much omega-6 relative to omega-3 results in increased inflammation - hence the emphasis on omega-3 supplementation, which blocks the conversion of omega-6 by COX enzymes. This paper explains the biochemistry: The omega-3 fatty acid docosahexaenoate attenuates endothelial cyclooxygenase-2 induction through both NADP(H) oxidase and PKCε inhibition - PMC. This is something Ray talks about also, but he thinks it makes more sense to reduce omega-6 rather than increase omega-3 as commonly recommended. Both Peat's view and the mainstream view follow similar underlying logic.
CellularIconoclast 2A0B:F4C2:4:0:0:0:0:110 (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- (ec) First of all, have you read our article on the anti-science movement? I think it's on the main page. RationalWiki devotes an incredibly large portion of its Mainspace to debunking, refuting, and outright mocking anti-science ideas, making it highly unlikely that it would have an anti-science stance on just one of dangerous food claims. Even still, it is not infallible, and if you see a scientific error, feel free to correct it (preferably with a citation).
- Be careful, though. Seeing as you have 5 decades of experience in biochemistry, you know that rat and mice biologies are in very few ways similar to those of humans, especially when in terms of digestion. Try to avoid assuming them to be consistent with humans at face value, even if you factor in some differences between the species. Also, while Peat's ideology may share roots with mainstream medicine, it diverges at a crucial point and it would be unwise to assume that everything emerging from reason is itself true. Also try not to be too combative in talk pages: people will be more likely to dismiss you.
- On a lighter note, writing a username before signing as an IP does not come across effectively. Try creating an account and registering as "CellularIconoclast." Hope this helps.
- – Regards, Avarice 00:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- This is the actual CellularIconoclast, the comments above are from someone else dishonestly claiming to be me, who paraphrased my rebuttal of this article on the Ray Peat forum, while editing my tone to sound more arrogant and less rational, and removing nearly all of the 'meat' from my actual response. I do not "have 50 years experience in biochemistry" - I am not even 50 years old, and while I am an academic that researches metabolism I am not primarily a biochemist by training, nor have I ever called RationalWiki an "anti-science website." Please see my actual comments on the article here: https://lowtoxinforum.com/threads/ray-peat-labeled-quack-for-white-supremacists.49790/page-2#post-1010972
- While I don't directly agree with all or even most of Peat's ideas, I have found his out of the box ideas on biology really inspiring as a scientist, and I don't consider him to be a quack at all. In fact, his style of creative out of the box thinking, combined with deep expertise is what leads to major advances in science historically- even if the fact that it is unusual could seem like quackery to a non-scientist. This is where I think skeptics and people interested in rational thinking often go astray, appealing to authority and conventional wisdom while confusing quackery with genuine innovation and creativity. While both challenge existing conventional wisdom, the latter involves doing careful work to actually understand what you are talking about, and critically evaluating and testing your own ideas.
- One thing RationalWiki article gets correct about Peat, is the fact that he is popular with right wing conspiracy theorists, something that only started to happen a year or two before he died, and that he was quite confused and upset about. Before that his following was mostly a combination of young science grad students attracted to interesting ideas, and middle aged women trying to figure out health issues related to menopause from someone that was actually talking about female hormones and how they work. He was the inventor of an oral delivery system for the hormone progesterone, which a lot of postmenopausal women found to be life changing. Peat himself was a soft spoken Eugene Oregon hippie academic with unusual science ideas and liberal politics, the type you will meet in any small college town on the west coast of the USA.
- Regardless of what anyone thinks about Peats controversial scientific ideas, all of them were backed by extremely detailed reasoning, and extensive peer reviewed citations. He was an honest and serious person that was speaking from a lifetime of deep thought and real world research experience, on the exact topics he held a doctorate in. His ideas deserve to be critiqued individually on their own merit, by someone with the technical background to understand them. Anything less would be inappropriate. Modern science and medicine would not exist without fringe thinkers like Peat- they are the ones that actually come up with the new ideas. Not being able to tell the difference between that and conspiracy theories and quackery, would seem to undermine the credibility of this site.
- My apologies if I'm not signing or replying correctly, I am not familiar with wiki norms or markup.
- --67.164.43.220 (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Don't sweat the formatting. If you're noticing that the article mostly focuses on the more conspiracy-centric parts of his career, that's normal; articles here are intended to be missional, and that means that the content in them should be too. That being said, context can be important, and if Peat showed any signs of disagreeing with the more dubioous beliefs centered on his research, that would be worth including. The same can be said for any biology errors you might notice — you can and should fix them (with citations where applicable). The good thing about open source projects is that anyone can fix any errors they happen to notice at any time, and provide their own experience to the overall result. That being said, remember that the reason the article is designed to focus on Peat's questionable and conspiratorial elements, so try not to remove material unless you know it to be false.
- – Regards, Avarice 20:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- CellularIconoclast, you have not refuted anything in your essay, you just offered some weak opinions. None of Ray Peat's fanatical dietary/disease claims are supported by human health outcome data so he is a quack by default making false claims. Where is the scientific evidence for his claim Unsaturated fats cause aging, clotting, inflammation, cancer, and weight gain, where is the evidence that avocadoes cause cancer? Human clinical outcome data please.
- Do you know how evidence-based medicine works? See here. They have done plenty of randomized controlled trials and long-term epidemiological studies on polyunsaturated fats and human disease outcomes. There is very strong evidence that polyunsaturated fats decrease heart disease and cancer risk. If you click on the link I cited, you will see the hierarchy of evidence. Ray Peat ignored this, he only ever cited extremely weak and outdated mechanistic in vitro studies or studies done on rats. This is not clinical data. Do you know what clinical data is? These non-clinical animal studies may sometimes show some pathway data but in most cases they show nothing and are considered the lowest and weakest type of evidence. You can feed anything in excess to a mice or a rat and they will end up with tumours. There is no consistent human outcome data from RCTs showing that polyunsaturated fats cause any chronic disease in humans. The evidence shows the exact opposite and there is about 60 years of data on this, so it is ludicrous to claim otherwise.
- Every single health and medical organization around the world (American Heart Association, British Dietetic Association, National Health Service, American Cancer Society, World Health Organization, National Institutes of Health etc) all recommend polyunsaturated to decrease chronic disease risk. Ray Peat was saying the complete opposite and provided absolutely no evidence for anything he said. Your claim about "extensive peer reviewed citations" is false. Quoting obscure biochemistry studies from the 1940s proves nothing. Show us 5 or 6 recent systematic reviews of controlled trials with consistent outcome data showing that polyunsaturated fats are bad for health. None exist but plenty exist showing the opposite.
- Even many of Ray Peat's own fan base have moved on past him. The forum you post at lowtoxinforum was renamed. 134.209.188.55 (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- You seem to be attempting to argue Ray Peat's views (still without actually understanding them), I already stated that I do not agree with most of them, and was pointing out that most of the points in the RationalWiki article are factually inaccurate in their own right- and I was doing so by emphasizing that it misses the actual problems with Peat's ideas, while focusing on the views and misunderstandings of unrelated fans of his. His ideas and arguments are all subtle and nuanced, and can't be reduced to simple terms like "conspiracy theory." Questions like "Do you know what clinical data is" and "Do you know how evidence-based medicine works" are pretty condescending and unrelated to any of my points- and it is worth noting that you are using those phrases incorrectly. For example, evidence based medicine is not what the name implies on the surface, it is a process to develop cutoffs on blood tests for medical doctors to make clinical decisions. I'm not interested in helping improve RationalWiki, it does not appear to be a worthwhile project- as it seems to use a sneering tone to dismiss anyone with out of the box ideas, executed by people that don't understand how science and medicine actually work on the inside, but worship its authority and institutions as some type of religion replacement. If you knew my real name, titles, institution, and credentials you would immediately concede all of your points, out of faith, however I won't share them because I do not approve of arguments from authority, on principle- it is incompatible with science. It's ironic how my same arguments and ideas are treated almost universally as gospel when I use my real life persona, and treated as insane quackery if I share them online anonymously. I would imagine RationalWiki ridiculing every major scientific discovery in history during the initial period before it gained mainstream acceptance. Many of Peat's ideas are accurate, or at least insightful into biology in a new way- and my lab has published many papers in top journals in the last few years inspired by them, that have been well received by the mainstream science community. Peat's way of thinking is a critical part of the discovery pipeline in mainstream science and medicine: he is a creative thinker, who inspires other scientists to actually test and further investigate those ideas.
- --67.164.43.220 (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- You have not shown that "most of the points in the RationalWiki article are factually inaccurate in their own right". We have over 30 years of clinical data showing that polyunsaturated fats reduce chronic disease risk, this is evidence you are not interested in or appear aware of. You ignore it. There is no conspiracy, the evidence is very strong and that why it is supported in the clinical health guidelines by all of the top medical organizations in the world. We also have long-term epidemiological studies, all of it is consistent and repeatable. In total there about 60 years of outcome data showing that Ray Peat is wrong on the topic of unsaturated fats. They have measured tissue levels of linoleic acid in humans showing that higher intake of polyunsaturated fats lowers cardiovascular mortality [3]. Your claim that "many of his ideas are accurate" is false. You have not shown any evidence. Show us the evidence that avocadoes cause cancer or that polyunsaturated fats cause atherosclerosis. These were two false claims that Peat would often promote throughout his career. The man is an utter crackpot and you are failing to defend him. It's also laughable that you boost yourself up as working in some lab. You are not a dietitian, physician or food scientist. I am the creator of the Ray Peat RationalWiki article. I don't edit this website anymore under accounts but occasionally use IPs - if you click on my account DietResearcher, you will see that I took a major in food science. It's obvious I know a lot more about you on this topic. It doesn't matter how much you know about biochemistry you ignore basic science. We are all still waiting for you to show that avocadoes cause cancer. You are only embarrassing yourself by defending a lunatic. 167.71.131.122 (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- A scientist disagreeing with mainstream consensus because they're looking at different mechanisms and data doesn't make them a quack. Even if they end up being wrong, the fact that people can disagree is the reason science isn't dogma, and consensus can progress at all.
- It is disingenuous to pretend that Peat is some kind of lone quack peddling wrong information on the health effects of different fatty acids. It is a poorly understood and highly debated topic, that is still getting lots of active research.
- What is going on here biologically and medically is complex, and I can't summarize the entire field in a few minutes, but a few key points:
- Grouping different fatty acids together, e.g. by degree of saturation isn't very meaningful, as individual ones have very different effects
- Different systems are affected in different ways, so looking at single systems and outcomes doesn't give a meaningful picture. The biological effects here are complex and go in different directions with different systems, so the idea that something like linoleic acid (LA) intake is simply "good" or "bad" is too simplistic to be meaningful.
- Epedemiology is limited in it's ability to investigate this issue because there is little variation in populations, and it cannot establish cause and effect: e.g. hypothetically, if doctors tell people with CVD to eat less deep fried food, or people at risk decided to themselves, you could find people with a lower linoleic acid (LA) intake having more CVD events, even if high intakes were a mechanistic cause of them
- The study you cited itself mentions "our results do not support any theorized cardiovascular harms of omega-6 fatty acids" - this alone shows that there were mainstream concerns about this possibility when it was published in 2019, after Peat wrote all of his essays on the topic.
- If you're genuinely interested in this topic and open minded, see if you can integrate some of this stuff into your perspective:
- Frances Sladek at UC Riverside has done a lot of excellent research on this topic via engineering soybeans that produce different ratios of fatty acids, allowing for very controlled animal diet studies, see for example these press release summaries: https://sladeklab.ucr.edu/news/2023/07/03/widely-consumed-vegetable-oil-leads-unhealthy-gut and https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2020/01/17/americas-most-widely-consumed-oil-causes-genetic-changes-brain and https://sladeklab.ucr.edu/publications
- William Lands, retired NIH researcher was a major proponent of the omega3/omega6 ratio concept, and his research suggests you only get major changes in health outcomes at certain thresholds in that ratio. His work also seems very much consistent with the modern epedimological observations, while suggesting that those are probably not able to observe much of what is important here (https://doi.org/10.1159/000097809). Under Lands the NIH released a lot of public materials and a website to encourage people to reduce LA intake in their diets, and they worked with the military to do so in military diets.
- That is not a comprehensive review of this topic in any way, but just a few examples to show that this has been, and continues to be an open scientific question with the NIH and NSF still funding large projects at major research institutions on it. Our mechanistic understanding, animal studies, and epidemiological observations don't add up with one another, and we need a lot more research to resolve the situation. Taking one side of it and claiming anyone that doesn't think it is simple, clear cut, and settled is simply a quack is just not reasonable. It misrepresents the nature of scientific research in a way that would paint anyone actually raising new questions, or researching controversial things as a quack.
- Personally, I am not entirely convinced that LA is particularly harmful in moderation, but I think the uncertainty combined with the precautionary principle is enough to not consume massive quantities, of e.g. deep fried fast food, which nobody really thinks is healthy anyways.
- --67.164.43.220 (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Not correct, you cited no human trial data. LA intake in humans does not increase markers of inflammation or oxidative stress. All health and medical organizations around the world recommend people to consume polyunsaturated fats and LA intake from nuts and vegetables oils as n-6 PUFA is very important as part of healthful dietary patterns.
- You just cited several weak studies on mice, this is NON-CLINICAL. This link you cited says "Researchers at the University of California, Riverside, examined the gut of mice that were consistently fed a diet high in soybean oil for up to 24 weeks in the lab" [4]. This is extremely weak bottom of the barrel evidence that has no relevance to humans. This study you also linked to [5] is on mice. In other words you have no clinical evidence that polyunsaturated fatty acids increase chronic diseases in humans. You have shown no human trial data but plenty of data exists. Let's not discuss this anymore. You lost the debate. You have shown no scientific clinical or long-term epidemiological data that avocados cause cancer or polyunsaturated fatty acids (like n-6) increase any chronic disease risk in humans. Please stop citing non-scientific unethical mice studies. Mice are not humans. As stated they have measured tissue levels of linoleic acid in humans over a period of 30 years, there are 1000s of samples, I linked to that review but you had no explanation for the data. The evidence shows only positive health effects such as a decreased risk of CVD mortality. People with higher LA tissue levels are in good health, so denialists such as Peat and yourself are wrong. You ignored all that evidence and cherry-picked a single line from the review. You are ignoring 60 years of scientific data for a handful of mice studies. How do you actually sleep at night? You are lying for a living. You are so far away from the truth, it's bizarre. 139.59.186.40 (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- It is a myth promoted by anti-seed oil cranks and Ray Peat fanboys that linoleic acid causes oxidative stress, as this has never been shown in humans. A good overview can be found here "Linoleic acid does not generate oxidative stress in the body as no rise in oxidative stress markers or oxidized LDL has been found with typical intakes. It’s true that LA is biochemically prone to oxidation (it’s an unsaturated fat), and lab tests show LA in LDL can form oxidized byproducts. But in vivo, the body’s antioxidant systems and the cholesterol-lowering effect of LA appear to offset this. Notably, replacing saturated fat with PUFA lowers LDL-C levels, meaning there are fewer LDL particles available to oxidize" [6]. 67.164.43.220 has cited no clinical in vivo evidence. 128.1.179.121 (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- The fundamental issue here is that you can't tell the difference between scientific disagreement and quackery- and your view of "quackery," is sufficiently broad to encompass much of ongoing molecular biology and biomedical research. Even if you were to convince me that everything Peat ever said is just flat wrong, that wouldn't affect this underlying issue in a meaningful way.
- Using words like "denial" and "lying" to label views you disagree with, yet are the subject of currently ongoing NIH and NSF funded research at R1 university research labs is simply inane. Dr. Sladek, who I mentioned above, is a friend and a very good scientist I've known for 15 years, and has made some huge discoveries in this area, whose entire career of findings in this area you can somehow dismiss apparently in 2 seconds. I'm not "ignoring" the stuff you posted, I am well aware of it, and find it interesting. I was posting things you're missing, because if you had a curious scientific mind, you would try to integrate these different things instead of angrily dismissing them. Biology is complex, and the human clinical data, mouse research, and mechanistic data not adding up to a simple common story is fascinating, and is reason scientists continue working on this. Frankly, this entire site is embarrassing because it's applying the same kind of blind dogma and closed minded anger that drives pseudoscience and quackery, when science simply doesn't and can't operate like that- scientists operate with uncertainty and intellectual humility. Peat's ideas are fun to talk about over drinks, and sometimes inspire new grants and papers even in cases where they aren't completely true, or a complete picture. As an academic PI I have literally never encountered attitudes like yours from my colleagues- and I bring up Peat's ideas fairly often. You guys would be very hard pressed to find any researcher that didn't see your work on this wiki to be essentially the equivalent of most of the quackery and conspiracy theories you're trying to ridicule- because the people publishing the stuff you're citing at me are not as certain or closed minded about it as you are. Ironically, the purpose of Ray Peat's entire project is to teach people to think for themselves in a creative and open minded way and not as "authoritarians" - he is providing an antidote to this very issue. It is essential to be able to lightly explore and play with interesting, controversial, and weird ideas in your mind in a creative way, without a knee-jerk angry reaction, even if they're ultimately wrong- people that can't mentally do that, don't make useful contributions to scientific understanding.
- --67.164.43.220 (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- More anti-science talk and ignoring all the human trial data which is dishonest. You have no clinical trial data to support any of your claims so you deliberately ignore it. You came here on a high horse boosting yourself as a lab scientist but ended up citing pathetic studies done on mice whilst ignoring robust controlled trial data that show linoleic acid does not cause inflammation in humans. All of the clinical data shows that polyunsaturated fatty acids decrease chronic disease risk and you have lost the debate on this so now you are moving goal posts.
- I suspect you are also an anti-vaxxer or cholesterol denialist. In nutritional science, reviews of RCTs and long-term epidemiological studies are at the top of the evidence hierarchy. We have decades of these studies. Those mice studies you cite are not evidence for anything. You have cited 0 human outcome data! 0! You misunderstand how science works. You are just another anti-science person like Ray Peat. A quack. Please do not waste time posting here again. Your agenda is to promote misinformation. You are actively harming people by promoting misinformation that unsaturated fats are harmful and you failed to show any evidence that avocados cause cancer. 138.68.135.219 (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- You guys might find it amusing that I was banned from the Ray Peat / lowtoxin forum for posting my rebuttal above, because I was simultaneously calling out you and them, for making an identical mistake- holding strong opinions about issues you haven't done the work to understand, and being closed minded about even the possibility or value of doing the studying required to understand the rest of the picture. Your view on science is so binary and dogmatic that you can't process that I don't fit into either of your two categories- I am a PI with a very well funded lab, and I absolutely love weird and fringe ideas, they're fun- not dangerous, and I've built my career on treating them carefully and rigorously instead of ignorantly dismissing them. By the way, in case you are confused, I'm pretty darn sure avocados don't cause cancer, and I'm going to make some guacamole right now, and eat them with chips cooked in (gasp) vegetable oil ;-) I am a also a huge fan of vaccines, however I am entirely certain you would consider my actual views on cholesterol to be "denialism" - despite the fact that they are actually the mainstream views of the scientific community, because they are more nuanced than public health recommendations. The "hierarchy" you discuss isn't how biological understanding works, it's how they make simplified recommendations for medical doctors and lay people- scientific understanding is more "Bayesian" in nature, and tries to build a unified picture that includes all of the evidence. They're different for good reasons- scientists are trying to figure out the truth with all of the messy uncertainty that entails, evidence based medicine is trying to make legally low risk and simple recommendations that can be followed by overstressed and busy doctors that just pulled an all nighter and don't have time to sit down and read 15 journal articles before they treat each patient. I don't envy your position where you "love science" so much you can't tolerate scientists, because to do their job they have to question scientific ideas.
- The short and sweet of it is you guys are not able to understand any of Peat's ideas- you haven't the slightest clue what he's even talking about, so have no grounds to form an opinion on it. It's literally identical to a religious zealot saying they don't need to listen to evolutionary theory to disprove it, because everything they learned in church already proves it wrong. I don't mind too much if religion does it because that's kind-of their thing, but people doing it in the name of science really pisses me off, because the whole point of science is to not be like that.
- --67.164.43.220 (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah umm way to contradict yourself, above you were an "academic that researches metabolism" now your "a PI with a lab who loves fringe ideas". Obvious pseudoscience apologist is obvious, quacking into its megaphone. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Those mean the same thing. PI is short for "primary investigator" - it means the named receiver of a research grant, and lead researcher ultimately responsible for an entire lab and its research projects. Typically a professor at a research focused academic institution, or an investigator at a non-teaching research institute, as opposed to a professor that only teaches and does not run a research program.
- Although "scientist" and "pseudoscience apologist" mean the same thing to you guys, it would be more accurate to call me simply a "scientist"- and you guys followers of what many now call "scientism" - where a non-scientist has turned science into a religious idol worship, and is fundamentally upset by scientific debate. That's not really what the word "scientism" means historically, but there is no better word that I am aware of at the moment, and it reflects the modern usage.
- Here's some ideas to make the RationalWiki project more credible:
- Drop the mocking combative tone, and adopt a professional neutral tone
- Recognize that even the most absurd conspiracy theory or pseudoscience is based on some reason for people to believe this, and try to figure out what that is with an open mind. It could be a real and new phenomena even when they have a wrong explanation, or they could be correct but not know how to rigorously prove that without external expert help
- Try to recruit some real scientists and engineers with technical knowledge, to allow you to distinguish between legitimate scientific controversy, and people peddling wrong ideas intentionally for some benefit, e.g. snake oil salesman
- Recognize that innovation is driven by creativity and open-mindedness- people like Ignaz Semmelweis (pioneer of antiseptic procedures) and Kary Mullis (founder of PCR) were weirdos with weird ideas, basically "pseudoscientists" that ended up still being right about one thing that changed the world. Dumb people trying to shut down smart people with abuse, insults, and bullying isn't rational, and isn't a good look, even if those smart people are weird and believe weird things.
- Realize the difference between the bureaucratic process medicine uses to establish standards of care, and how mainstream science actually works. Virtually no working scientists have ever heard of "evidence based medicine" and the methods they actually use aren't anything like that.
- You could look at, e.g. Carl Sagan for an example of skeptical inquiry that is still open minded and curious
- Open your minds by studying stuff you don't understand- e.g. become actual scientists and drop the scientism. If you guys understood Peat's ideas enough to actually disprove and criticize some of them them, you'd already be in a position to make real contributions to human knowledge
- Anyways, I've got a busy day ahead of me lecturing the Jehovah's witnesses at my door on epistemology, and then later trying to convince my dog to appreciate modern physics.
- --67.164.43.220 (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Feel free to let the door hit you on the way out. Antares (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Your acting like most fringe nutters who claim they have science behind them and that their opponents are the ones who are dogmatic, heck your using the same "scientism" shit, only fringe psuedoscience apologists (YECs, anti-vaxx nutjobs etc.) use that term also lol you realize that RW is not supposed to be "neutral" thats the fucking point, we call out bullshit like it is. Also I thought you said you were going away yet decided to edit your comment more times. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with parts of what you were saying, but one mistake was assuming this whole website shares the same philosophy of science. I'm not sure if this part followed out from that assumption, but it also seemed like at points you were treating scientists as a big social club who this site needs to appeal to. I agree the molecular biology should be understood and mice/rat studies could be a part of this, though I don't know why you brought up "precautionary principle" since that's one approach for subjects which haven't been rigorously studied yet. I haven't read into this as much as either you or the other IP but I've seen at least one big study on these preventing cancer: https://news.uga.edu/fish-oil-protects-against-cancer/ (sourced from UK Biobank, a large data pool). Though the ratio apparently matters. So it's not as if the ultimate outcome hasn't been studied in large human samples, whatever the molecular biology of it may be, this sort of result would seem to carry a lot of weight. Chillpilled (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘As a final note, there's a big different between using preliminary research (cellular or animal studies in biology) to create hypotheses for further research, and using the preliminary research to draw conclusions about humans and promote that to the public as Peat did. The former is done all the time in science, and is the basis for the hierarchies of evidence. The latter is the basis for quackery. Bongolian (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
|