Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:51, 10 December 2018

Dr Malcolm Kendrick

See Dr Malcolm Kendrick – deletion from Misplaced Pages -- Longhair\ 01:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand where the canvassing came from now. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Let me suggest you stop arguing with the puppets. It just makes more work for the closing admin. Pinging Strikerforce as well. EEng 21:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I have made my final contribution, pending someone else coming along and raising valid points for discussion. Strikerforce 21:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• For some reason I haven't been taking my own advice. This bunch is just too easy. EEng 05:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not commenting on there again. To be honest, these loons that support Kendrick just damage his reputation IMO, because they are all conspiracy theorists and anti-science talking about NHS cover-ups and Kendrick taking down the pharmaceutical industry. Not one sane rational person has come from his blog onto Misplaced Pages and put a sensible policy based reason to why his article should be kept.

Search Malcolm Kendrick on twitter - there are hundreds of these conspiracy theory wack-jobs crying about "censorship". This time it is not creationists or anti-vaxxers it is cholesterol conspiracy theorists and these "low-carb" diet nutters who seem to think the government and the medical community is out to get them by deleting Kendrick's Misplaced Pages article. Funny stuff, some of them even claim I was paid by the government to do it. The truth is much more simple. I submitted his article for deletion because no reliable sources mention him. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

LIAR! ;) Strikerforce 15:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah you got me. I actually work for a pharmaceutical company, and I was paid $4000 to submit his article for deletion. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

And the truth shall set you free! Strikerforce 17:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• EEng 19:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Cholesterol Denial

Hi, I was wondering if you think it's worth adding 'Cholesterol Denial' to the Denialism page, preferably under the Examples of scientific denialism section? I've been considering writing this up on RationalWiki for a while. Swampf0etus (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes it should probably be added. Until last week I did not know this cholesterol denial thing existed. I knew about anti-vaxxers but these denialists are even more kookier. They are mostly active on twitter it appears in the "low-carb high-fat LCHF" community and there are only a handful of scientists who support that position.

I might have a go at improving this article with some more criticisms The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics (they can be used on the denialism article). Skeptic from Britain (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Uffe Ravnskov 80% of the article will be deleted because it is unsourced. It's possible his article might be deleted, but I will have a go at trying to re-write it first if I can find any reliable sources. He is another conspiracy theorist. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not support adding this topic that to the Denialism page, discussion regarding that addition should be on the talk page of that article and not here. Scientific scrutiny is healthy and it's how humanity makes advances in scientific knowledge. The US FDA, and USDA have relaxed advice to lower dietary cholesterol in recent years over research that shows early dietary advice to restrict natural sources of cholesterol was flawed.~ Mellis (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not support dding this page to denialism

To be clear - the "kooky " people you mention on Twitter are in the main from a community which now includes well over half a million people who have reversed diabetes , obesity and various other metabolic illness through following an LCHF lifetyle. it is also the main ingredient of the largst and most popular dieting website in the world. That lifestyle was recently debated in American Congress , the Uk Houses of Parliament, The European Commission. it has led to 50,000 GP's in the Uk being provided with an app. to help them apply it to their patients in the UK . it has led to innumerable individuals (including myself )now recording non diabetic HbA1c and it is in active analysis across the world including by the American Military. There are numerous clinical trials now underway to identify further why the actual clinical practise works so well. Recent studies also found scientific underpinnings of why weight loss is longer lastimg on it compared to other diets. The underlying knowledge and nutritional treatments have been used( sucessfully ) for 200 + years. They do not require medication . Dr David Unwin in the Uk won the prize for the most innovative GP practise last year using its principles to save a substantial NHS cost and reverse T2 diabetes in a significant number of patients . This diet involves eating meat and animal fats and as such inevitably falls foul of those intent on a "plant based" LDL lowering hypothesis. hnce why those adopting it come into conflict with Cholesterol as the " be all and end all" of heart health .You can continue to try to stop any of this information reaching the general public via wiki. It will not stop it being developed elsewhere because at the moment it is the prime means by which the world stands a chance of reducing the incidence of diabetes across the world and governments are recognising that. In these circumstances I am rather surprised that wiki appears so keen to ensure that its own pages do not reflect the current state of the debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandazz100 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's get real here regarding this LCHF stuff (which has been correctly described as a cult by critics). There is no huge "debate" about this in science, just amongst a handful of fringe researchers (Malcolm Kendrick, Tim Noakes, Gary Taubes, Aseem Malhotra etc) most of who are not qualified nutritionists. This is a non-issue amongst the medical community at large. The LCHF (low-carb high-fat) diet and "lifestyle" is absolute quackery, there is no evidence it has any long-term health benefits. It is not supported by robust studies from science and its proponents are conspiracy theorists. It is not a healthy to believe in this nonsense! Skeptic from Britain (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion of the diets is noted, but your claims that there are no health benefits is not backed up and very bias by your own pre-judgements. Over half a million people have reversed serious medical conditions with these diets, including myself. Cancer patients are able to keep their cancer in remission on these diets, or vastly improve treatment outcomes. Obesity can be cured on these diets. I guess dying of these diseases is healthier than the diets that reverse the diseases?~ Mellis (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)