Zëbulon wrote:

That is not what I meant Derek. I can't seem to make myself clear. :*(
Research is necessary and I realize that. But research done yesterday,
claiming what is GOOD for us may be superseded by even NEWER research
tomorrow disproving these truths. Meanwhile, how many people were harmed
taking the research as gospel? Knowing what one researcher claims can be
disproved by different researcher, why take it as gospel?

Gospel, never, but because essentially science is a collaborative field,
it's not unreasonable to put a degree of faith in the results. By the time
science in the field of health is deemed acceptably well researched to be
applied to the public, a great many scientists have seen the data and had a
chance to disprove it. Unfortunately the HRT experience proved that a
number of unreasonable assumptions had never been questioned - but even
scientists are human. Mistakes will happen, and one reason this one did is
that after the thalidomide disaster researchers and ethics boards have been
extremely reluctant to test drugs on women.

How do we know
"which" research was well done and is RIGHT, is safe to take seriously?
Suddenly what was good for us yesterday, they now know kills or harms us.
IOW, what was TRUE yesterday may be proven to be poor or bad research
tomorrow - like the trans-fats and hormone issue. How on earth can that
be
explained? Why couldn't they see this the first time around?

Trans-fats is easy - we keep narrowing down the list of inputs and
separating out those that are bad from those that aren't (but aren't
necessarily _good_).

That's why I
have little faith in most research now. I know what I believe *today*
can
be blown out of the water tomorrow. Sorry,... maybe I need to make myself
clearer when I post. :-)

I have little faith in Doctors - but I still know that I want to see one if
I break a leg and probably if I find a tumor.

Which all neatly sidesteps the issue of feeding cheap food to pricey koi.
--
derek