)I thought computer jumpiness was caused by a virus:-))
Same with the food manufacturers.
But it's not so easy as all that.
They FINANCE the studies - they do not do them. The studies are done at
university research departments in most cases, by scientists who value
their reputation.
The drug/food company will often have one representative on the
scientific team - but they are by no stretch involved in it apart from
providing a drug to test or a food to use etc.
One can (and must) see through the biased aspects and look at what
the research REALLY discovers.
This is why I feel so strongly that homeopaths NEED to know how to
interpret research papers.
An example (I'll use a food/kidney-health one to hopefully defuse
emotions from the principles involved):
In 1991, Hills Science diet food manufacturer did research to try to
show that feeding poor quality low protein from cheap soy, was a good
idea for those with kidney damage. To this day most kidney specialists,
endocrinologists and doctors recommend this for damaged kidneys!!!
However if one READS the 1991 research, which was done in cats, it
compares two foods, both of them 40% (or 44%?) fat, and the rest was a
mix of hi-carbohydrate cereal and soy protein. one food had higher
protein than the other, and the cats with intentionally damaged kidneys
did better on the lower protein food. Cats in both groups failed to eat
their quota of food (no wonder as there was sickening fat and no meat in
it! and some got ill on the fat included which was all saturated.
Since no human or cat eats a 40% saturated fat diet and lives very
long on it, the entire research was invalid. It also was invalid for
using soy protein for an obligate carnivore.
One researcher working for Hills Science diet back then was so
disgusted at having his good name involved (Dr Delmar Finco) he later
repeated the research on protein levels, using a proper food, ranging
from 18% protein up to 56% protein. (56% is what cats get in the wild) -
and used animal protein, not soy plant protein.
He also separated foods on calories to ensure his results were not
due to calorie differences rather than protein ones. The results of
course showed that damaged kidneys need a LOT of protein to be
repairable and the 56% protein diet won hands down.
Calorie-wise, the low calorie diet did better.
So the studies were reported as "controversial" because according to
food manufacturers (not scientists) one showed low protein a good idea
(cheap soy protein) and the other showed expensive meat protein a good
idea. Vets and doctors all learned the 1991 stuff in med/vet school, and
seldom change their minds after that regardless of evidence.
We homeopaths can do better!
So how to explain the Hills results?
Not hard: The soy plant protein is inappropriate for animal tissue
repair as it has amino acids in plant ratios not animal ratios - so the
leftovers of metabolic attempts to handle such off balance amino acids -
actually increase the kidney damage. So the more soy was eaten, the
more kidney damage occurred. That is why6 the lower protein in the Hills
study did LESS damage than eating more of the damaging soy protein.
The WRONG conclusion had been drawn - that "high proten damaged kidneys"
instead of that "high soy with high fat" damaged kidneys.
The research FACTS were still correct - even in the bad research.
Soy will do damage - and high saturated fat will also.
That is my point - that we need to look at the research facts - at what
the research REALLY shows - not at what some drug/food manufacturer
concludes from it.
And of course - if your own or your clients' kidneys are damaged - do
not put them on a low protein diet or a soy protein diet! Use a low
calorie high protein meat-/fish/egg based anti-oxidant,
anti-inflammatory diet.
This sort of ability to read a research paper and SEE the difference
between what was discovered and what was CLAIMED to be discovered - is
crucial in homeopathy: As Hahnemann explained, the environmental factors
and maintaining causes including diet, ARE our responsibility to check out.
The research *facts* are there - we need to use them.
So - even very biased research turns up good science if you read it
properly. The drug company person on a research team is by no means the
majority of the scientists - and the detailed scientific paper IS
available (and necessary) to read - not just the potentially faulty
conclusion, which is indeed a lazy (and dangerous) option:-)
This means we have to independently look at the research to see what
was discovered that may be of use.
It does NOT mean we should get on a high horse and throw the baby out
with the bathwater to mix metaphors.
Namaste,
IRene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."