Ketogenic diet slows progression of 5 neuro degenerative diseases

.
Nourishing the Aging Brain, By Morten Scheibye-Knudsen,  The Scientist, March 2015

( in pdf format )


Quotes (see here ):

ALS:
Increased basal metabolism
Caloric restriction exacerbates progression
Ketogenic diet slows progression

ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE:
Normal or lowered basal metabolism
Caloric restriction slows progression
Ketogenic diet slows progression

PARKINSON’S DISEASE:
Increased basal metabolism
Caloric restriction slows progression
Ketogenic diet slows progression

HUNTINGTON’S DISEASE:
Increased basal metabolism
Caloric restriction may slow progression
Ketogenic diet slows progression

COCKAYNE SYNDROME [accelerated aging disease]:
Increased basal metabolism
Caloric restriction exacerbates progression
Ketogenic diet slows progression

.

Bad science and politically motivated low fat dietary guidelines finally exposed and ditched!

.

Recent (20/02/2015) New York Times article by Nina Teicholz (**):

The Government’s Bad Diet Advice

Quotes

First, last fall, experts on the committee that develops the country’s dietary guidelines acknowledged that they had ditched the low-fat diet. On Thursday, that committee’s report was released, with an even bigger change: It lifted the longstanding caps on dietary cholesterol, saying there was “no appreciable relationship” between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol.
...
Instead of accepting that this evidence was inadequate to give sound advice, strong-willed scientists overstated the significance of their studies.
Much of the epidemiological data underpinning the government’s dietary advice comes from studies run by Harvard’s school of public health. In 2011, directors of the National Institute of Statistical Sciences analyzed many of Harvard’s most important findings and found that they could not be reproduced in clinical trials.
...
In 2013, government advice to reduce salt intake (which remains in the current report) was contradicted by an authoritative Institute of Medicine study[*]. And several recent meta-analyses have cast serious doubt on whether saturated fats are linked to heart disease, as the dietary guidelines continue to assert.

Uncertain science should no longer guide our nutrition policy. Indeed, cutting fat and cholesterol, as Americans have conscientiously done, may have even worsened our health. In clearing our plates of meat, eggs and cheese (fat and protein), we ate more grains, pasta and starchy vegetables (carbohydrates). Over the past 50 years, we cut fat intake by 25 percent and increased carbohydrates by more than 30 percent, according to a new analysis of government data. Yet recent science has increasingly shown that a high-carb diet rich in sugar and refined grains increases the risk of obesity, diabetes and heart disease — much more so than a diet high in fat and cholesterol.

It’s not that health authorities weren’t warned. “They are not acting on the basis of scientific evidence, but on the basis of a plausible but untested idea,” Dr. Edward H. Ahrens Jr., a top specialist at Rockefeller University and prominent critic of the growing doctrine on dietary fats and cholesterol, cautioned back in the ’80s.
...
Since the very first nutritional guidelines to restrict saturated fat and cholesterol were released by the American Heart Association in 1961, Americans have been the subjects of a vast, uncontrolled diet experiment with disastrous consequences. We have to start looking more skeptically at epidemiological studies and rethinking nutrition policy from the ground up.
Until then, we would be wise to return to what worked better for previous generations: a diet that included fewer grains, less sugar and more animal foods like meat, full-fat dairy and eggs.

Other links:

*) She probably meant this report: Sodium Intake in Populations: Assessment of Evidence (14/05/2015)

**) Nina Teicholz, author of “The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet.”

http://stan-heretic.blogspot.ca/2015/02/useless-low-fat-dietary-guidelines-by.html

http://stan-heretic.blogspot.ca/2015/01/salt-intake-not-correlated-with.html

http://stan-heretic.blogspot.ca/2015/01/are-some-diets-mass-murder.html

http://stan-heretic.blogspot.ca/2013/05/dietary-fats-undeserved-bad-reputation.html

http://stan-heretic.blogspot.ca/2013/10/lesson-from-medical-history-beware-of.html



.

US to drop anti-cholesterol food guidelines!

.
Cholesterol in food is "no longer a concern"!   It is now OK to eat bacon and eggs!

From Commons.Wiki 

U.S. may lower cholesterol's level of threat to health: report

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. advisory panel reviewing national dietary guidelines has decided to drop its caution against eating cholesterol-laden food, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

At a December meeting, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee discussed its decision to no longer deem cholesterol a "nutrient of concern," according to the Washington Post.
...

What happened to those scientists and medical doctors who, for many decades have been signing and propagating the anti-cholesterol guidelines?  I wonder, what could be the overall health damage estimate, caused by those recommendations, to date?
.

Useless low fat dietary guidelines by governments, no scientific justification!

.

Open Heart/BMJ just published a meta-study:

Evidence from randomised controlled trials did not support the introduction of dietary fat guidelines in 1977 and 1983: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives National dietary guidelines were introduced in 1977 and 1983, by the US and UK governments, respectively, with the ambition of reducing coronary heart disease (CHD) by reducing fat intake. ...

Conclusions

Dietary recommendations were introduced for 220 million US and 56 million UK citizens by 1983, in the absence of supporting evidence from RCTs.

Discussion
The main findings of the present meta-analysis of the six RCTs [Randomized Controlled Trials] available at the time of issuing dietary guidelines in the US and UK indicate that all-cause mortality was identical at 370 in the intervention and control groups. There was no statistically significant difference in deaths from CHD. The reductions in mean serum cholesterol levels were significantly higher in the intervention groups; this did not result in significant differences in CHD or all-cause mortality.
It is a widely held view that reductions in cholesterol are healthful per se. The original RCTs did not find any relationship between dietary fat intake and deaths from CHD or all-causes, despite significant reductions in cholesterol levels in the intervention and control groups. This undermines the role of serum cholesterol levels as an intermediary to the development of CHD and contravenes the theory that reducing dietary fat generally and saturated fat particularly potentiates a reduction in CHD.
...
There was best practice, randomised controlled trial, evidence available to the dietary committees, which was not considered and should have been. The results of the present meta-analysis support the hypothesis that the available RCTs did not support the introduction of dietary fat recommendations in order to reduce CHD risk or related mortality. Two recent publications have questioned the alleged relationship between saturated fat and CHD and called for dietary guidelines to be reconsidered.31 ,32 The present review concludes that dietary advice not merely needs review; it should not have been introduced.

Actual data from the publication:

References and links:

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/blog/

Interestingly, the original studies at that time produced similar similar conclusions of non-supporting the reduction of dietary fat.  The following quotes are from Zoë Harcombe's blog (one of the main author of the above quoted study):

The studies’ own conclusions.  These are the verbatim conclusions from each of the studies:

1965 Rose Corn and olive oil: “It is concluded that under the circumstances of this trial corn oil cannot be recommended as a treatment of ischaemic heart disease. It is most unlikely to be beneficial, and it is possibly harmful.” (ref 9)

1965 Research Committee Low-fat diet: “A low-fat diet has no place in the treatment of myocardial infarction” (ref 10) [heart attack].

1968 MRC soya-bean oil: “There is no evidence from the London trial that the relapse-rate in myocardial infarction is materially affected by the unsaturated fat content of the diet used.” (ref 11)

1969 Dayton LA Veterans study: “Total longevity was not affected favorably in any measurable or significant degree… For this reason, and because of the unresolved question concerning toxicity, we consider our own trial, with or without the support of other published data, to have fallen short of providing a definitive and final answer concerning dietary prevention of heart disease.” (ref 12)

1970 Leren Oslo Diet Heart study: “Epidemiological studies have demonstrated several factors associated with the risk of developing first manifestations of coronary heart disease. Blood lipids, blood pressure and cigarette smoking are such risk variables… In spite of the small numbers this observation lends some support to the view that the multi-factorial approach is the best way to the solution of the coronary heart disease problem.”(ref 13)

1978 Woodhill Sydney Diet Heart Study: “Survival was significantly better in the P [control] Group.” “It must be concluded that the lipid hypothesis has gained little support from secondary intervention studies.” (ref 14)
...

Salt intake not correlated with mortality

.
New study and one more medical myth demolished:

Dietary Sodium Content, Mortality, and Risk for Cardiovascular Events in Older Adults

Wiki

Quote:

Results  The mean (SD) age of participants was 73.6 (2.9) years, 51.2% were female, 61.7% were of white race, and 38.3% were black. After 10 years, 881 participants had died, 572 had developed CVD, and 398 had developed HF. In adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models, sodium intake was not associated with mortality (hazard ratio [HR] per 1 g, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.98-1.09; P = .27). 

Born during Solar minum - longer lifespan

.
by 5.2 years, on average!  Quite a strong effect and many of the results are statistically significant (p less than 0.05), according to a Norwegian study [1] that analyzed 202 years of data over a population of 8662 people.  See also this article.
A Solar cycle takes 11 years on average, thus the period of the study (1676-1878) spans about 18 cycles.  Interestingly, intensity of cosmic radiation goes down during solar maximum, due to the shielding effect of the active solar wind against Galactic cosmic rays.  Could the lower level of ionizing radiation background present during Solar Maxima [2] have had a detrimental effect, and the higher level during the Solar Minima - may have had a beneficial effect on the newborn babies?  This is my purely speculative interpretation of course - but see my other articles on ionizing radiation!

 Results are shown in the Figures 1,2 and 3, from the referenced paper:

References:

1. "Solar activity at birth predicted infant survival and women's fertility in historical Norway",
Gine Roll Skjærvø, Frode Fossøy, Eivin Røskaft, 
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2014.2032, Proceedings B of The Royal Society, Published 7 January 2015

2. Cosmic radiation background is strongly and inversely dependent on the Solar activity.  Cosmic radiation is the highest and the Sun is the least active, the Sunspot number is the lowest at Solar Minimum, for example, see the following graph:

The effect is stronger at high latitudes, like in Norway, where the magnetospheric shielding is lower.  Incidentally higher level of Cosmic Radiation during low Solar activity results in high global cloud cover due to cloud seeding, which in turn lowers the global temperature.  This is a stronger effect than due to CO2 variation, according to some studies [to be quoted]. 

Are some diets "mass murder"?

.
Recently published paper in BMJ, of the title above:

BMJ 2014; 349 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7654 (Published 15 December 2014)

Wiki 

Quotes:

Jean Mayer, one of the "greats" of nutrition science, said in 1965, in the colourful language that has characterised arguments over diet, that prescribing a diet restricted in carbohydrates to the public was "the equivalent of mass murder."1 Having ploughed my way through five books on diet and some of the key studies to write this article, I’m left with the impression that the same accusation of "mass murder" could be directed at many players in the great diet game. In short, bold policies have been based on fragile science, and the long term results may be terrible.

...

An analysis of the data from the Seven Countries Study in 1999 showed a higher correlation of deaths from heart disease with sugar products and pastries than with animal products.13 John Yudkin from London had since the late 1950s proposed that sugar might be more important than fat in causing heart disease,4 but Keys dismissed his hypothesis as a “mountain of nonsense” and a “discredited tune.” Many scientists were sceptical about the saturated fat hypothesis, but as the conviction that the hypothesis was true gripped the leading scientific bodies, policy makers, and the media in the US these critics were steadily silenced, not least through difficulty getting funding to challenge the hypothesis and test other hypotheses.

...

It might be expected that the powerful US meat and dairy lobbies would oppose these guidelines, and they did, but they couldn’t counter the big food manufacturers such as General Foods, Quaker Oats, Heinz, the National Biscuit Company, and the Corn Products Refining Corporation, which were both more powerful and more subtle. In 1941 they set up the Nutrition Foundation, which formed links with scientists and funded conferences and research before there was public funding for nutrition research.

...

Recognising that the fat hypothesis was falling apart, some scientists, particularly Walter Willett, professor of epidemiology at Harvard (whom I’ve also met), began to promote the Mediterranean diet, which comes in many forms but is essentially lots of fruit, vegetables, bread and grains (including pasta and couscous), little meat and milk, and plenty of olive oil. Such a diet is much easier to eat than a low fat diet, and a combination of vested interests, including the International Olive Oil Council and a public relations company Oldways, which promoted the diet, has—together with the natural seductiveness of the Mediterranean region—made the diet popular. But the science behind it is weak, as a Cochrane review found,20 and some of the evidence comes from R B Singh, whose research is suspect.21

Last but not least and somewhat related to the above topic,  some science fun stuff. Enjoy!

The Demise of Science? Hundreds of Computer Generated Studies Have Been Published in Respected Scientific Journals.

Another vegan myth bites the dust!

.
I found the link, of all places on Dr. Michael (VeganMD) Greger site.  (Thanks EG!)

from Wiki

"The Impact of Dietery Protein..."

Quote:

Abstract

Although high-protein diets induce hypercalciuria in humans, the source of the additional urinary calcium remains unclear. One hypothesis is that the high endogenous acid load of a high-protein diet is partially buffered by bone, leading to increased skeletal resorption and hypercalciuria. We used dual stable calcium isotopes to quantify the effect of a high-protein diet on calcium kinetics in women. The study consisted of 2 wk of a lead-in, well-balanced diet followed by 10 d of an experimental diet containing either moderate (1.0 g/kg) or high (2.1 g/kg) protein. Thirteen healthy women received both levels of protein in random order. Intestinal calcium absorption increased during the high-protein diet in comparison with the moderate (26.2 +/- 1.9% vs. 18.5 +/- 1.6%, P < 0.0001, mean +/- sem) as did urinary calcium (5.23 +/- 0.37 vs. 3.57 +/- 0.35 mmol/d, P < 0.0001, mean +/- sem). The high-protein diet caused a significant reduction in the fraction of urinary calcium of bone origin and a nonsignificant trend toward a reduction in the rate of bone turnover. There were no protein-induced effects on net bone balance. These data directly demonstrate that, at least in the short term, high-protein diets are not detrimental to bone.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Off topic, a joke "du jour", had to post it, couldn't help it...
8-:D

(From a vegan forum by Katydid)

I wish I could find the link to where I learned this (I think it was in Dr. Klaper's "Foods that Kill" video), but you can think of a fully saturated (hydrogenated) fat like a straight inflexible stick. As it flows through the bloodstream the stiffness of the molecule causes it to "poke" at the lining of the blood vessels and cause irritation. A mono or polyunsaturated fat has missing hydrogen atoms that allow the fat molecule to flex, so it causes less damage as it flows through the bloodstream. So if you substitute say, olive or canola oil for butter or lard, you'll improve your heart health by reducing the constant irritation to your blood vessels"

Just a spoonful of sugar (with CO2) helps the medicine go down

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302151

Quotes:

Objectives. We tested whether leukocyte telomere length maintenance, which underlies healthy cellular aging, provides a link between sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption and the risk of cardiometabolic disease.
...
Results. After adjustment for sociodemographic and health-related characteristics, sugar-sweetened soda consumption was associated with shorter telomeres (b = –0.010; 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.020, −0.001; P = .04). Consumption of 100% fruit juice was marginally associated with longer telomeres (b = 0.016; 95% CI = −0.000, 0.033; P = .05). No significant associations were observed between consumption of diet sodas or noncarbonated SSBs and telomere length.
Conclusions. Regular consumption of sugar-sweetened sodas might influence metabolic disease development through accelerated cell aging. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print October 16, 2014: e1–e7. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302151)

Notice the lack of correlation for non-carbonated sugar-sweetened beverages!

More on the carbohydraty poison, today's news.  Skim milk anyone?

Quote:

In women the adjusted mortality hazard ratio for three or more glasses of milk a day compared with less than one glass a day was 1.93 (95% confidence interval 1.80 to 2.06). For every glass of milk, the adjusted hazard ratio of all cause mortality was 1.15 (1.13 to 1.17) in women and 1.03 (1.01 to 1.04) in men. For every glass of milk in women no reduction was observed in fracture risk with higher milk consumption for any fracture (1.02, 1.00 to 1.04) or for hip fracture (1.09, 1.05 to 1.13). The corresponding adjusted hazard ratios in men were 1.01 (0.99 to 1.03) and 1.03 (0.99 to 1.07). In subsamples of two additional cohorts, one in males and one in females, a positive association was seen between milk intake and both urine 8-iso-PGF2α (a biomarker of oxidative stress) and serum interleukin 6 (a main inflammatory biomarker).

Interestingly, detrimental effects seem to be related to the milk lactose contents rather than fat or proteins, because consumption of milk products that are high in fat and lower in lactose, such as fermented milk, cheese or cream, seem to correlate with more favorable biomarkers profile.

Comparing milk with other dairy products
Particularly noteworthy is that intake of fermented milk products such as yogurt and soured milk and cheese were associated with lower rates of fracture and mortality. Furthermore, we observed a positive association only between milk intake and markers of oxidative stress (urine 8-iso-PGF2α) and inflammation (serum interleukin 6). Previously, we found a negative relation between bone mineral density and 8-iso-PGF2α.42 63 Interleukin 6 seems to be causally related to cardiovascular disease64 and may influence bone loss and osteoporosis.65 Importantly, those who consume high amounts of non-fermented milk have a more non-favourable cardiovascular risk factor profile, with higher blood pressure, lower high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and higher insulin resistance.18 In contrast, intake of cheese and fermented milk products is related to higher high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, less insulin resistance, and a lower risk of myocardial infarction.18 22 23 24 In addition, a recent small randomised cross over study indicated that the intake of a fermented dairy diet seemed to provide a more favourable biomarker profile than that of a non-fermented dairy diet.66

Anti-depressants may permanently rewire the brain

.
New  study by the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig, Germany, just published:

Antidepressants rapidly alter brain architecture

To have your brain permanently rewired? No problem, just take those pills mentioned in the article!

Quote:

The rapid connectivity shifts noted by the study might therefore be precursors to longer-term changes, perhaps starting with remodeling of synapses, the microscopic gaps where chemical neurotransmitters such as serotonin flood across to an adjacent brain cell, the study suggests.

The concentrated on the Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor class of anti-depressants. Interestingly, some of the most severe (long lasting and dangerous) withdrawal symptoms are reported to be associated with the Serotonin-Norepinephrine Reuptake inhibitor, or SNRI.

Venlafaxine and Serious Withdrawal Symptoms: Warning to Drivers

Suddenly and mysteriously, protein no longer leaches calcium from bones!

.
Surely, all the past warning by vegans against consuming too much proteins, as being bad for bones, especially animal proteins, must have been based on something?  Something must have happened in the environment...


Recently published:

Biomarker-calibrated protein intake and bone health in the Women's Health Initiative clinical trials and observational study

Quotes [my comments added in square brackets]:

Abstract
Background: The effects of dietary protein on bone health are controversial.

[Really? I was under an impression that it has all been 'proven' long ago by a scientist from Cornell...]

Conclusions: Higher biomarker-calibrated protein intake within the range of usual intake was inversely associated with forearm fracture and was associated with better maintenance of total and hip BMDs.

These data suggest higher protein intake is not detrimental to bone health in postmenopausal women.

[This is using double-negative form to weaken a perceived impact of the statement. Under 'normal' circumstances, a scientist would have simply stated: "We found that eating more protein improves bone density and reduces probability of some types of bone fractures in postmenopausal women"]

Heretic

(P.S. Thanks JC for the link!)

Fasting - something is missing...

.
Fasting for three days can regenerate entire immune system, study finds

Radical news - free radicals are good for us!

Researchers found that free radicals can actually make our cells live longer - read here:

Think antioxidants...

Quote:

... When free radicals interact with the cells, proteins and DNA in the body, they can cause damage by interfering with their chemical structure. Until now, it has been believed that, as a result, we inevitably suffer the ravages of ageing, from normal physical ageing to diseases such as cancer.
But the Canadian study, published in the respected journal Cell, says the opposite. Researchers found that free radicals can make our cells live longer.
This happens by altering a mechanism called apoptosis. This is a process by which damaged cells are instructed to commit suicide in a variety of situations, such as to avoid becoming cancerous when their DNA has mutated dangerously, or to kill off viruses that have invaded the cell.


The scientists have found that free radicals can stimulate this 'suicide mechanism' to do something completely different in healthy cells - bolstering their defences and increasing their lifespan.
Siegfried Hekimi, professor of biology at McGill University, who led the study, says: 'The so-called free-radical theory of ageing is incorrect. We have turned this theory on its head.'
Professor Hekimi says that when he raised levels of free radicals in nematode worms (these simple roundworms are used because their nervous system performs many of the same functions as higher organisms), he got the creatures to live 'a substantially longer life'.
His study reinforces suspicions raised by other scientists. Last year, for example, researchers at the Multimedica Cardiovascular Research Institute in Italy warned that our bodies need the stress caused by free radicals to stimulate them to fight infectious disease and to properly regulate vital bodily functions such as our cardiovascular system.

The Milan-based researchers had surveyed all previous research evidence and concluded in The International Journal of Biochemistry and Cell Biology: 'Increasing the levels of antioxidants in our bodies may harm our health. Balanced levels of antioxidants are important for our cardiovascular system and for healthy ageing.'

The theory behind this idea is called hormesis - which may be more described as 'what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger'.

Scientists believe our bodies have evolved an array of defence mechanisms for surviving tough environments, but that these systems are not switched on unless we are challenged. And that is where free radicals come in.

The problem with antioxidants is that they may neutralise this 'protective' effect. It may also help explain why antioxidant pills have been found to produce some unexpectedly harmful results.
For instance, laboratory studies have shown how high doses of antioxidants such as N-acetyl cysteine - a popular antioxidant supplement - may promote the spread of breast cancer cells.
Meanwhile, the antioxidants beta carotene and vitamin A have been linked to an increased risk of death from lung cancer and lung disease. ...

If supplements make us age faster, then perhaps excessive consumption of vegetables and fruit would make people age faster as well?

Apparently yes!...

Credentialism

.

Source: Wiki

Form of economic discrimination disguised as opportunity.

Fascinating article:

College is a promise the economy does not keep
Has college become less about education and more about purchasing credentials for flawed job market?
14 May 2014, by Sarah Kendzior

Quote:

People go to college because not going to college carries a penalty. College is a purchased loyalty oath to an imagined employer. College shows you are serious enough about your life to risk ruining it early on. College is a promise the economy does not keep - but not going to college promises you will struggle to survive.

In an entrenched meritocracy, those who cannot purchase credentials are not only ineligible for most middle-class jobs, but are informed that their plight is the result of poor "choices". This ignores that the "choice" of college usually requires walking the road of financial ruin to get the reward - a reward of employment that, in this economy, is illusory.

Credentialism is economic discrimination disguised as opportunity. Over the past 40 years, professions that never required a college degree began demanding it.

Vegetarianism not healthy!

.

 versus 

Source: wiki (both pics)

Large Austrian study was published recently:

Nutrition and Health – The Association between Eating Behavior and Various Health Parameters: A Matched Sample Study

Quote:

Our results revealed that a vegetarian diet is related to a lower BMI and less frequent alcohol consumption. Moreover, our results showed that a
vegetarian diet is associated with poorer health (higher incidences of cancer, allergies, and mental health disorders), a higher need for health care, and poorer quality of life.

From Table 3 (statistically significant results only):

Compared with carnivorous diet rich in meat, vegetarians have 1.8 higher risk of Allergies (30% in absolute terms!), 3 times lower risk of urinary incontinence (2%), 2.7 higher risk of cancer (4.8%), and 2.1 higher risk of anxiety disorder or depression.

Among non-statistically significant results, most notable is about twice as high risk of cardiac infarction (1.5% vegetarian vs 0.6% meat eaters), and a generally higher risk of all other chronic conditions.

See also: Study: Vegetarians Less Healthy, Lower Quality Of Life Than Meat-Eaters

Global Warming - Fight of the Faceless Fomentors

.
Mysterious Steven Goddard's anonymous heretical blog is documenting what appear to be cases of scientific fraud and data-tampering associated with the recent global warming "research" by NASA-GISS (NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies).  Look at the graphs in:

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/spectacular-data-tampering-from-giss-in-iceland/

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/03/25/30-of-giss-warming-is-due-to-data-tampering-since-2005/?relatedposts_exclude=105745

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/03/25/all-giss-us-warming-is-due-to-data-tampering/

A presence of opposing views or even debunking is essential to the scientific method.  Steven Goddard has attracted his or her fair share of the latter:

http://www.desmogblog.com/steven-goddard

The following anonymous blog (Hey NASA is that you? On the other hand, Steve - if  you made that blog to "debunk" yourself - congratulations!  8-:D   )
-  seems to be devoted mostly to debating and character-assassination of "Steven Goddard"

http://reallysciency.blogspot.ca/

http://nationbuilders.thenation.com/profiles/blogs/debunking-a-climate-denier

http://climatecrocks.com/2011/09/14/new-lows-sea-ice-and-steven-goddard-credibility/


Update (23/06/2014):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

Quote:

"Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology."

Update (30/06/2014):

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, criticized for manipulating temperature records to create a warming trend, has now been caught warming the past and cooling the present.
...
"These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on 'fabricated' data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century," Booker adds.
When asked about climate data adjustments by the DCNF back in April, NOAA send there have been "several scientific developments since 1989 and 1999 that have improved the understanding of the U.S. surface temperature record."

Update (6-July-2014):

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/06/25/government-data-show-u-s-in-decade-long-cooling/

Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor citing issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely cited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago.
Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius,
which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century. ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681829/Global-warming-latest-Amount-Antarctic-sea-ice-hits-new-record-high.html

Global warming computer models confounded as Antarctic sea ice hits new record high with 2.1million square miles more than is usual for time of year.

• Ice is covering 16m sq km, more than 2.1m unusual for time of year
• UN computer models say Antarctic ice should be in decline, not increasing

America’s National Snow And Ice Data Center, which is funded by Nasa, revealed that ice around the southern continent covers about 16million sq km, more than 2.1 million more than is usual for the time of year. It is by far the highest level since satellite observations on which the figures depend began in 1979. In statistical terms, the extent of the ice cover is hugely significant.

It represents the latest stage in a trend that started ten years ago, and means that an area the size of Greenland, which would normally be open water, is now frozen. The Antarctic surge is so big that overall, although Arctic ice has decreased, the frozen area around both poles is one million square kilometres more than the long-term average.

In its authoritative Fifth Assessment Report released last year, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admitted that the computer models on which scientists base their projections say Antarctic ice should be in decline, not increasing. The report said: ‘There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to… incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change.’

-----------------------------------------------
Update (20-July-2014):

Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace on "Global Warming":

Myths Busted at Climate Change Conference

During the breakfast session on Day 2, Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore chronicled the radicalization of once-noble environmentalist groups. Standing before photographs of himself leading environmental protests and provocative actions against whalers and other corporate entitites, Moore explained how Greenpeace and other environmental activist groups are now harming human health and welfare by demanding so many resources be dedicated to the fictitious global warming crisis. True environmental progress would be made fighting for land conservation and other real environmental concerns rather than trumped-up global warming claims, Moore explained.

Patrick Michaels, a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and former program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society, explained during the Day 2 luncheon how government research grants are promoting the false notion of an alarmist consensus. Large government research grants are handed out almost uniformly to scientists who will promote the idea of global warming crisis, which ensures more budgetary dollars for government agencies addressing the topic and subsequently more research grants for the participating scientists, he noted.

More:

Humans are NOT to blame for global warming, says Greenpeace co-founder, as he insists there is 'no scientific proof' climate change is manmade

PATRICK MOORE ON THE HOT TOPIC OF GLOBAL WARMING:

There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century." (My emphasis) "Extremely likely" is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines "extremely likely" as a "95-100% probability".

But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been "invented" as a construct within the IPCC report to express "expert judgment", as determined by the IPCC contributors.

When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today.

There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.

Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.

The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming "since the mid-20th century" which is 1950. From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5C over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year "pause" until 1970.

This was followed by an increase of 0.57C during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.

The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910-1940 to "human influence".

Low dose radiation is healthy!

What has cholesterol-heart disease theory and anti nuclear power environmentalism got in common?  It turns out - a lot!      8-:)

I came across a fascinating conference presentation by Philippe Duport on low level radiation in Ottawa University, January 2002.

Basically, turns out that radiation level between 10 to 1000 times stronger than the typical sea level natural background,  reduces the risk of cancer and extends the lifespan!   Some slides:

Note: 0.2Gy (Gray) is 20rad which is a rather high dosage (lethal dose for humans is 100rad), see also Wiki.

30% lung cancer reduction after 0.15Gy dose.

28% longer lifespan in mice at 35 and 70 times the natural background radiation!

Human cancer studies show a similar risk reduction, for example British radiologists have a lesser risk (by about 30%) than their non-radiologist colleagues.  Similar situation with Canadian radiation workers, 12% and 26% lower SIR (Standardized Incidence Ratio) of cancer in women and men, respectively,  28 and 35% lower cancer mortality rate (SMR=Standardized Mortality Rate) in women and men, respectively,  38 and 41% lower all causes mortality rate (SMR=Standardized Mortality Rate) in women and men, respectively (see slides 36,37).  It is interesting to note that the total mortality rate decreases more with (low level) radiation exposure than the cancer mortality, indicating that the protective effect of low level ionizing radiation against many other causes of death (cardiovascular?)  may be even stronger than against cancer!

The next slides illustrates the effect of rising natural radiation level with altitude above the sea level (due to cosmic ray effect).

High elevation = higher radiation = less cancer!

Similar map appears when plotting cancer incidence maps versus natural radiation map due to radon emission from the ground.

More Radon = more radiation = less cancer!

Conclusions (slides 45,46):

• Ionizing radiation is part of life.
• Sources of ionizing radiation are naturally everywhere, in food, air, water and our body.
• Life appeared and evolved in a radioactive environment.
• At environmental levels, there is no evidence of increased risk with increased dose, even when annual doses exceed current dose limits for radiation workers
• In fact, there are indications of decreased risk of cancer and non-malignant diseases at doses and dose rates well above current regulatory limits for the public and the workers.
• Populations in high background areas tend to have less cancers than those in low background areas.
• Low dose radiation is used in medicine: radon spas, cancer treatment and prevention.

This is supported by many other sources, studies and statistics, for example, see Figure 3 at  http://radiation-hormesis.com/

Optimum health = 100 times higher radiation than typ background!

------
Refs:

http://radiation-hormesis.com/

http://www.lowdose.uottawa.ca/projects.htm

http://www.lowdose.uottawa.ca/publications_files/Facts%20about%20low-dose%20radiation%20effects.ppt

http://stan-heretic.blogspot.ca/search?q=hormesis

The Anointed Ones

.
Fascinating new presentation by Tom Naughton, a must-watch (begin with the Vision of the Anointed at 8m 27s)!

A dissection of the homicidal nutritional disinformation campaign waged throughout the XX-th century by the corporate medical & drug establishment against the population.  Many interesting threads documenting the triumph of the corporate-governmental complex pitted directly against the science and against the public interest.

Proportion of heart attack survivors on different types of fat, clinical study, quoted from Tom Naughton's video (see the Youtube link above)

"Healthy" vegetable fats (2), heart attack survivors, clinical study (same source as above)

Low fat anyone?  Heart attack survivors, clinical study (same source as above)

Death by committee - what did the United States and later all other governments do, following the above studies?  (same source as above)

Twistor Revolution in Physics

.

This is a short alert note! It looks like a new revolution in theoretical physics, involving Twistor concept, has been going on for some time. Spinor coordinates, Clifford Algebra and quantum states replacing the space-time and classical vector calculus. No longer are space and time the free coordinate variables of the quantum or classical equations of motion or of the curvature tensor (General Relativity - R.I.P.).   No space, no time, no singularities, no Feynman diagrams, no locality, no 26 dimensions ...

Roger Penrose presentation (must watch!!!)

More reading, more refs: Andrew Hodges review

For the most hardened, read this unreadable "Primer on Twistors" by Fedja Hadrovich.

Lesson from medical history - beware of liars!

.
An article link was emailed to me by a friend.  An article like many of that kind, published in the last few years exonerating the benefits of low carb nutrition and pointing out some fallacies of the past misguided medical guidelines, full of references and links to various published studies.

  The way it was written, in a succinct way, has caught my attention and made me think about my own path to nutritional heresy and liberation from the Official Medical Dogma.   It dawned on me that it is actually much worse than I ever believed!   Back in 1999, when I once saw a medical article calling for low fat low meat high vegetable and fruit diet, in my naivety, I sent an email to an author, pointing out discrepancies and inaccuracies.   Among them I pointed out that the health risks associated with saturated fat and meat consumption were most likely caused by mixing fat and carbohydrates together in similar caloric proportions.   I believed in that!    The truth turns out (see many of the references links embedded in the article, for example this multi-study review) was much simpler and troubling than that - we were not dealing with the honest scientific mistakes!   The statements of a  health risk from eating saturated fat, with carbohydrates or without -  were a mixture of medical lies, references to irreproducible anti-saturated fat and cholesterol pseudoscience, plus unproven opinions!  Much of the dietary medical "wisdom" doled out so often in the past 30 years by the generations of unintelligent doctors to their patients, has been actually completely disproven by many of the past studies and by a majority of recent studies!

Heretic

References:

1) 13 Nutrition Lies That Made The World Sick And Fat

2) Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease