I like this article but a big reason that the seed oil hypothesis is rejected is just because seed oil disrespecters look/sound similar to anti-vaxxers. Early criticisms of seed oils were "look at how it's processed with hexane" rather than the meaningful hypotheses that you listed in your article. And it goes against mainstream science …
I like this article but a big reason that the seed oil hypothesis is rejected is just because seed oil disrespecters look/sound similar to anti-vaxxers. Early criticisms of seed oils were "look at how it's processed with hexane" rather than the meaningful hypotheses that you listed in your article. And it goes against mainstream science so this also means it's coded as a right-wing belief so you also get the political tribalism to it.
Yea that's attached for sure. I honestly don't know how to get around that better than just ignoring it.
If something is true, but you don't believe it because your political opponents believe it, I don't know how to help you :) Hopefully we'll just show that "it totally works" and then people will come around their biases?
Therein lies the challenge: showing broadly and precisely that a substance with a half life of 3½ years causes the problems we think it causes.
This, to me, is the difficult thing with all of diabesityheimersclerosis (see what I did there? Gotta give heart disease its rightful due … bonus that the sclerosis can refer to lots of different sclerotic diseases)—It’s all so slowly accruing that it’s impossible to carry out valid experiments to test the necessary hypotheses.
And yea, these long term issues with funky/hidden feedback loops are terrible for "science." Same thing with global warming. We suck at things that take decades and have many confounding and complex causes/effects.
I like this article but a big reason that the seed oil hypothesis is rejected is just because seed oil disrespecters look/sound similar to anti-vaxxers. Early criticisms of seed oils were "look at how it's processed with hexane" rather than the meaningful hypotheses that you listed in your article. And it goes against mainstream science so this also means it's coded as a right-wing belief so you also get the political tribalism to it.
Yea that's attached for sure. I honestly don't know how to get around that better than just ignoring it.
If something is true, but you don't believe it because your political opponents believe it, I don't know how to help you :) Hopefully we'll just show that "it totally works" and then people will come around their biases?
Therein lies the challenge: showing broadly and precisely that a substance with a half life of 3½ years causes the problems we think it causes.
This, to me, is the difficult thing with all of diabesityheimersclerosis (see what I did there? Gotta give heart disease its rightful due … bonus that the sclerosis can refer to lots of different sclerotic diseases)—It’s all so slowly accruing that it’s impossible to carry out valid experiments to test the necessary hypotheses.
cardiabesityheimersclerosis :D It's so good!
Yea and not just the half life issue, it's also omnipresent so you can't do a "control" group unless you kidnap some Tsimane or Tukisenta people.
And yea, these long term issues with funky/hidden feedback loops are terrible for "science." Same thing with global warming. We suck at things that take decades and have many confounding and complex causes/effects.