If the Study’s Conclusion Sounds ‘Unequivocal’...

Recently I had an email talking about how so many studies are biased and unscientific in one way or another.

We all want to use studies that support our position and we want to dismiss studies that challenge our beliefs. It’s human nature. It’s cognitive dissonance.

I’m trying to fight this feeling. I want to see how I can have people change my mind. People do change. I’ve changed my mind about a whole host of subjects where people can be pretty passionate about their beliefs:

• Politics

• Religion

• Diet

I’ve made some pretty big changes over the years in each of these areas.

Health seems like another area where this is a religious-like fervor about defending your position.

That’s why my spidey senses start tingling when I see people state their opinion on a controversial subject as indisputable fact. They dismiss the other side as just wrong.

Take this example:

Andrew Scott has 2 master of science degrees in his bio. He claims to help people reverse their diabetes after he did it himself.  I am not questioning his background. I just don’t know.

He claims statins do everything their manufacturers say they do. Without any side effects.

I asked him for a list of the primary sources he is reading. I told him I’m open to changing my mind on statins.

Here was his reply:

I clicked on the link he provided. It takes you to this paper stating that LDL cholesterol causes atherosclerotic Cardiovascular disease.

It was interesting to me because the title seemed the authors are saying it is a fact that LDL cholesterol causes heart disease.

Here is their conclusion:

Unequivocally?

Normally these studies tell you that more research needs to be done. Or the result is statistically significant.

Not that the conclusion reached is beyond an argument.

The conclusion is ‘a consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) Consensus Panel.

I looked up who primarily funds the EAS:

Yup. Mostly big pharmaceutical companies. The people who are quite happy for you to take statins.

To be fair, the EAS does state that they have independent testing and oversight of their studies. It still seems a little suspicious to me.

They also came to this ‘factual’ conclusion by using epidemiological studies. The kind of studies where the participants fill out questionnaires on what they have been eating.

Think you could be completely accurate about what you ate the past several days? Me neither. I can probably narrow it down because I’m on a carnivore diet.

People eating the standard American diet might have a harder time remembering the variety. Or may not want to admit what they really ate.

They also use randomized trials of LDL-lowering therapies. In other words, their own drug trials. Maybe they are all objective?

Even if they are, it seems a little extreme to use the word ‘unequivocally’ in your title. Especially when there are many other studies that show LDL cholesterol may not be directly correlated to heart disease.

If the finding was truly ‘unequivocal’, then you would not be able to find cases of people with high LDL and no cardiovascular disease markers. Yet they exist.

Studies definitely have a place in science. But when they become a bit cocky and try to silence debate, it no longer seems like good science to me. Science is all about debate.