Another case of settled science goes “poof”

In this case its the meme that less salt is important to good health. I suspected this was bullshit a long time ago, and I am glad to see my suspicions vindicated. Two things that are critical to balanced brain chemistry and to avoid depression are salt and sunlight. We have been told for decades to consume less salt and stay out of the sun because of dubious claims that one causes heart problems and the other cancer. I called bullshit on both decades ago. Heart problems and cancer are both genetic, and from what the medical field is discovering now, possibly even caused by viruses.

I have never had any form of depression because I do not hide from the sun nor avoid salt. I know a ton of people that avoid the sun like they are vampires and will not touch salt because of their fear of heart damage. Practically every one of them is a basket case, always battling depression, and quite a few are even suicidal. Once even took her own life. Fuck that. Eat salt, like with everything else in moderation, and be happy. Give them a few more years and they will actually tell us salt is essential.

Remember the whole egg fiasco and how that played out? I do. Eggs are good. Eggs are going to kill you! Eggs might not be so bad. Eggs are awesome for you! The beauty of real science is that if you make a claim and the facts do not bere out, we get to toss your idiotic claim out of the window. Real science that is. Not that consensus shit.

Bloomberg was not available for comments.

Comments are closed.

  1. Seattle Outcast

    Other lines of BS sold to the public:

    Eating cholesterol is bad

    Eating lots of carbs (starches and sugars) is good

    Eating lots of protein is bad

    Global Warming/Cooling

    Keynesian “Economics”

    Specific fats are good/bad for you – this flip flops every decades, so just ignore it

    Thumb up 2

  2. stogy

    This story has been around for a while. I tried to get some of the people I work with to have a look at the research, but they still put out recommendations here on maximum daily salt intake. People generally eat so much salt here that I am not particularly worried that they are suddenly going to put themselves in danger from under-consumption.

    But Alex,

    Heart problems and cancer are both genetic, and from what the medical field is discovering now, possibly even caused by viruses.

    Only partly true. Environmental factors and their interactions with genetics and infectious agents play a big part. You smoke, your chances of a whole bunch of cancers go up; if you have the wrong genes, your chances go up further still. High consumption of red meat is probably the biggest risk factor in bowel cancer. Too much sun without protection, your chances of skin cancer go up. Too little exercise and too much sugar, your chances of a heart attack rise significantly.

    The really interesting stuff though is the new possible link between lack of sunlight and heart attacks, and effects of environment on genetics.

    Give them a few more years and they will actually tell us salt is essential.

    They do. It’s in the article you linked to. This is a known known.

    Alex, you’ve trumpeted the importance of the scientific process here, but coupled it with your own half-baked beliefs containing semi-truths and some anecdotal evidence from your friends. And you’ve dismissed environmental factors based on the fact that it matches your political beliefs about “consensus” science.

    Overconsumption of salt as a dietary risk factor has been part of the consensus for years. Now, new evidence is overturning the consensus. You want to overturn the “consensus” on climate change, you need a really strong case backed by solid evidence. That kind of evidence is yet to emerge (that’s not to say that it won’t).

    Thumb up 3

  3. AlexInCT *

    Only partly true. Environmental factors and their interactions with genetics and infectious agents play a big part.

    Stogy,

    I am not going to argue with you that environmental factors matter, that’s because they do, but predisposition to certain diseases is far more likely to be an indicator, and honestly far more critical, when factoring chances for disease. I have a relative that while not a health freak, did their best to keep ship shape and avoid risks. Ran, worked out, ate healthier than you could imaging, avoided the sun, watched salt, didn’t drink alcohol, ect. ect. Got colon cancer at 33. Was found when stage 4. After some serious medical intervention and surgery to remove the donut sized tumor, treatment still has him ticking, a thing his young wife and 3 and 1 year old kids are taking advantage of, but he is going to eventually die from the cancer that spread to other areas. I knew (notice that tense) someone else that was a health freak that got cancer and was not so lucky. Died at 42. I was told about an old ex of mine the other day. She passed away less than 2 weeks ago from stomach cancer. She could not have been more than 47. The stories go on. Every one of these people have a history of cancer in their family.

    You smoke, your chances of a whole bunch of cancers go up; if you have the wrong genes, your chances go up further still.

    Let me tell you about my paternal grandfather, whom was a genius and the source of some of the best advice ever. The man told me at the young age of 10 to never drink, smoke, or cavort with women until I was 12. He did all of that to excess. Smoked until the day he died at the tender age of 99. And he smoked filterless cigarettes. Shit, we now have people that tell us obesity might itself be caused not by overeating, but because eating large amounts of certain food types causes you to have the wrong kinds of intestinal bacteria that affect how your body breaks down food. I recently even saw a guy talking about how we might have the cause of diabetes wrong, and that it isn’t weight gain that causes diabetes, but that said gain is a side effect of the predisposition to diabetes being battled by your body.

    My bet is genetics factor in a lot higher than we would like to believe it does, and that it impacts a far greater percentage of people. Also, that infectious agents we yet do not understand correctly, play a big part in triggering these genetic conditions. People are living far longer, and more importantly, many people that without modern medicine would never have live past infancy, let alone had the ability to procreate, are for a lack of better way to put is spreading the risk for many conditions that in the past were simply not prevalent because of natural selection.

    The point is that while we would like to pretend modern medicine is so advanced, it isn’t. We yet have a lot to learn. The funny thing is that a lot of what we find out turns out to resemble information we used to consider old maid’s tales and had discarded as inconsequential or insignificant. People long ago might not have had our science to back up their beliefs, but they knew shit. Mind you that I am not saying they got everything right, but they got a lot of stuff we later reversed, only to then reverse that back, right.

    The point is that people should pay attention to how they live and what they do, and avoid the things they know cause them personal issues. But the real hard thing to swallow is that you could do everything right and still, because of a predisposition to it, end up shafted by your own nature. Of course, you could also get hit by a truck (mine is one loaded with some alcoholic beverage that spills on me so I can go with a smile on my face), and die, so the moral, I guess, is to live life like every day counts.

    Overconsumption of salt as a dietary risk factor has been part of the consensus for years. Now, new evidence is overturning the consensus. You want to overturn the “consensus” on climate change, you need a really strong case backed by solid evidence.

    Actually, that evidence is out there, and there is a preponderance of it, but the problem is that there is very little science and a whole lot of politics driving the consensus behind AGW. I do not doubt that it will die eventually. After all, when nothing you predict bears out, eventually people wise up and stop believing your cries of wolf. We are there already to an extent, as most people that take science seriously are final able to come out and call this hoax what it is: a farcical attempt to scare people into accepting an incredibly unpalatable political solution for a made up problem. The priesthood and the firm believers like you, will not go down without a fight, but you will go down, and you will do it in flames. Don’t worry. I am sure there will be another earth ending crisis your kind can glom on to in your dessperate attempt to try and sell the rest of us your dream of a socialist one world government utopia in the future, so you will not be without something to invest your strong faith in collectivism in.

    Thumb up 3

  4. Seattle Outcast

    Not once has a doctor asked me about my salt intake. When I asked my internist about it he said that it isn’t an actual factor to be concerned about – you just pee it out of your system.

    Smoking they ask about it, refined carbs they ask about, activity levels they ask about – red meat, butter and eggs? Nobody gives a shit. Oh, and try to have a few drinks through the week. That bottle of 21-year old scotch I just picked up is “medicinal”. ;-)

    Thumb up 2

  5. stogy

    My bet is genetics factor in a lot higher than we would like to believe it does, and that it impacts a far greater percentage of people.

    It’s worth reading up on epigenetics, which shows there is a two way relationship between environment and genes. The thing that really rocked my world was the possibility that gene expression based on environmental influences can be transferred between generations. Obesity may be connected less to your actual genes than to what you ate in the first couple of years of your life, the poor diet your mother ate when she was pregnant with you, , and perhaps even the diet of your grandparents.

    Epigenetics does to biology what quantum mechanics did to physics.

    Thumb up 3

  6. stogy

    Actually, that evidence is out there, and there is a preponderance of it, but the problem is that there is very little science and a whole lot of politics driving the consensus behind AGW. I do not doubt that it will die eventually. After all, when nothing you predict bears out, eventually people wise up and stop believing your cries of wolf.

    Read Tamino every couple of days and you’ll see exactly how bad the state of science of climate change rejectionism is. He’s a published and well-regarded climate statistician. There is nothing that looks even remotely like challenging the consensus. In fact, contrary to what you’ve said here, the vast majority (over 97%) of results confirm the basic findings of generations of climate scientists before now. Remember that consensus busting is a major scientific achievement, and confirms a long-lasting scientific legacy. It’s pretty much every scientist’s dream. But so far…

    On the other hand, many of the self-styled, consensus-challenging “skeptics” have been predicting arctic ice recovery and dropping temperatures every year since 2005, but they have been wrong pretty much every year, and while there have been some short-term “recoveries”, the overall trend is bad. The decadal global temperature average continues to rise, arctic ice continues to decrease. Their stats are bad, the basic science is wrong, they misrepresent the research of real scientists, they hint at dark conspiracies for world government, and many of them hide their funding from the fossil fuel industry.

    And based on your previous comments – not understanding the carbon cycle, citing warming on Mars, and claiming violations of the 2nd law of thermodynamics – you are not really in a position to evaluate the state of science yourself. At least take a real look at it – look at some of the real science and understand it before you clamor about a conspiracy of scientists to take over the world.

    Thumb up 0

  7. AlexInCT *

    Read Tamino every couple of days and you’ll see exactly how bad the state of science of climate change rejectionism is.

    Been there before, and that site is a fucking hack. Not surprised you think what they pretend is science is solid though. I prefer to get my information from someone that actualy places value on science and the scientific method, so if I may recommend it try ClimateDepot for some real and scientific coverage of the cult’s religion.

    Thumb up 3

  8. stogy

    Been there before, and that site is a fucking hack. Not surprised you think what they pretend is science is solid though. I prefer to get my information from someone that actualy places value on science and the scientific method,

    Really? I’d love to see your critique. You have clearly no understanding of climate science, yet you are able to evaluate a respected climate statistician, who every other day pulls apart bad stats from rejectionists, as a hack. Come on, do what I asked you to do two years ago: a point by point takedown. If he is a hack as you say, then it should be easy to prove. I am sure with all your knowledge, you’ll have them all quivering with fear and uttering your name in only awed tones.

    And then you link to a political, not a science website, as a source of your climate change news. You seriously have no fucking idea. Climate Depot is a product of Marc Morano who has no actual climate science training. None. Instead, he was a political science major. He also worked for Senator Inhofe (another complete scientific illiterate loon) and is on the payroll of foundations funded by Exxon and Chevron. And he’s your source of impartial news on climate.

    Now I at least understand where you get your quack theories – I haven’t been back to the site for a couple of years, but the quality hasn’t improved. Morano was certainly putting about the warming on Mars story a couple of years ago. He also made a claim that climate scientists were getting $50,000,000,000 in funding. Wow. Just. fucking. wow! And have you read his review of Bob Carter’s latest book. It’s barely literate.

    It’s time you read some of the actual science, because you clearly haven’t. A really smart idea is to start by finding out what the really intelligent people (and I don’t claim to be one of them) with opposite ideas to your own are saying, evaluate the facts carefully, and then move onto critique. If you start with people like Morano, you don’t even make the grade as a useful idiot.

    Thumb up 4

  9. Seattle Outcast

    It’s time you read some of the actual science, because you clearly haven’t.

    Funny, because that’s what most of us are thinking about you….

    Thumb up 2

  10. stogy
    It’s time you read some of the actual science, because you clearly haven’t.

    Funny, because that’s what most of us are thinking about you….

    I actually spend quite a lot of time at the fake sceptic sites you seem to think of as science. I mean, read some of the actual science. Not blogs. Not political lobby groups. Not nutball weirdo wackjob fake scientists who also claim to have cured HIV and be sitting members of the House of Lords.

    Actual actual science.

    Thumb up 6