Part 2
Many people display an unfortunate lack of skepticism towards medical and nutritional authorities. Yet it is also very easy to swing the pendulum too far in the other direction and embrace all manner of medical woo-woo.
Many skeptics of the “malevolent cholesterol hypothesis,” for instance, put forward some pretty strange (and decidedly unscientific) beliefs about medicine, health, etc.
The moral is this: just because a doctor or researcher gets some elements of the story correct does not mean that he or she will get everything correct.
Furthermore, it is possible for very smart people to offer trenchant insights into certain biological or physical phenomena and, at the same time, get other “big things” wrong. A great case in point is the tragic story of Nobel Laureate, Linus Pauling, who worked during the mid 20th century and revolutionized medicine in many wonderful ways. Many credit him with being the father of molecular biology and quantum chemistry.
However, during the latter stages of his career, Pauling became enamored with what turned out to be a very flawed hypothesis about the efficacy of Vitamin C in the treatment/prevention of a wide of array of diseases, such as cancer. Pauling, who “drank his own Kool-Aid,” metaphorically, began taking ultra mega doses of Vitamin C for years to prevent cancer. He ultimately died of prostate cancer at the age of 93; some critics suggest that, ironically, his megadosing of Vitamin C contributed to the ailment.
The proliferation of bad science and bad science reporting has given birth to an entire industry of “myth dispellers” and “professional skeptics.” These individuals (and their followers) claim the mantle of “neutral arbiters.” In reality, sadly, many self-appointed skeptics are often just as biased, if not more so, than the so-called charlatans or quacks they presume to expose.
Many self-appointed skeptics demonstrate a disturbing inability to see the forest for the trees. For instance, an editorial that condemns statin makers like Pfizer of failing to warn the public about the Type 2 diabetes side effects nevertheless may wholeheartedly (and unthinkingly) embrace the myths about cholesterol and health that this book has dispelled — such as the fact that cholesterol is “bad” and that LDL is a monolithic “evil entity,” as opposed to a heterogeneous class of entities, as Dr. Ronald Krauss and his colleagues decisively demonstrated.
Do you need clarity about your Lipitor case? Call the Davis & Crump team now at 800-277-0300 to protect your rights to potential compensation.
