With the beta carotene studies, it was the discordance between all the evidence that came before the clinical trials and what the clinical trials found that shocked the scientists. They had a proposed mechanism and a mass of evidence from observational studies. But the randomized studies found no protection.
**That said, there is some evidence that that points toreported health benefits from drinking hard water instead of soft water. Asmost of the articles below point out, though, there is no strong consensus aboutthe actual cause of the findings (it may be something in the soft water that isharmful rather than the calcium and magnesium ions in the hard water that arebeneficial, for example) or even how real the effect is.
That was a ludicrous statement, as Gary Taubes demonstrates in his new book meticulously debunking diet myths, “Good Calories, Bad Calories” (Knopf, 2007). The notion that fatty foods shorten your life began as a hypothesis based on dubious assumptions and data; when scientists tried to confirm it they failed repeatedly. The evidence against Häagen-Dazs was nothing like the evidence against Marlboros.
By contrast, observational studies that ask what happens to people who act a certain way in their everyday lives rather than in an experiment are not as tightly controlled. For example, if people who eat fruits and vegetables or take beta carotene are compared with those who don’t, the two groups are quite likely to be different from the start. Fruit and vegetable eaters and vitamin takers tend to be more health-conscious in general, more likely to exercise, less likely to smoke. So scientists try to adjust for these differences with statistical modeling.
It may seem bizarre that a surgeon general could go so wrong. After all, wasn’t it his job to express the scientific consensus? But that was the problem. Dr. Koop was expressing the consensus. He, like the architects of the federal “food pyramid” telling Americans what to eat, went wrong by listening to everyone else. He was caught in what social scientists call a cascade.
Gary Taubes: So, as long as it's all about calories, getting back to the evidence, to demonstrate that there's something unique about sugar, the case against sugar depends on demonstrating that it has effects --deleterious effects independent of its calories. That it's not just something we benignly over-consume and we get fat because we over-consume all calories. And that of the effects of sugar from the caloric content of sugar is excruciatingly difficult to do in a laboratory and an experimental setting. And what I've realized in the last 5 years of my life, tried, and to some extent failed to run a nutrition or, I co-founded a nutrition-science initiative, a non-profit that was going to fund and facilitate studies that could resolve these issues. And I completely under--you know, it was like a heart-beat[?] away--you know, getting involved in a nonprofit. And the revelation was how excruciatingly difficult these experiments are. How easy they are to screw up. And if you don't have people who have been thinking about the hypotheses. So, if you take a whole world of people who for the past 50 years have thought a calorie is a calorie and obesity is a caloric imbalance problem, and you say, 'I want you to do an experiment in which we are going to test your fundamental belief based on this alternative hypothesis--that a calorie is not a calorie and obesity is a hormonal, regulatory disorder--and the way you are going to have to do it is you are going to have to disassociate the effect of the calories from the effect on the human body,' it takes an extraordinary amount of thought and dialogue and argument, and critique and critique and critique, before you are going to get an experiment that even to work to do this. And there is an absence of people who are of having those debates and the critiques, because nobody has been about it.
I don't know if you looked through the references, but most of them were about population studies showing differences between groups that drank hard vs. soft water. That observation is fairly common in the literature, but there is, to the best of my understanding, no consensus among researchers on the CAUSE of the slight, variable, and sometimes non-existent association between higher rates of various diseases and the population drinking soft water. I have never seen the difference conclusively explained by the actual difference in levels of calcium, magnesium, and other minerals between the two populations. The main point is that soft water (lacking calcium, magnesium, and other "hardness minerals") is NOT distilled water, and one cannot use negative health effects of drinking soft water (if any are conclusively demonstrated) to support a claim that distilled water (containing no minerals or other contaminants) is harmful.
It is fairly tedious to track down every reference used by an author making an argument or proving a point and try to determine if the author of the paper in question used the reference properly to support the argument or whether the investigator(s) experimental methods were sound. I only looked at a couple of examples. A lot of his references were from what appeared to be obscure journals that would be difficult to find anyway.
I will make a few comments below, but the best article I have found to discuss the findings an earlier WHO study that reached similar conclusions is by the Canadian Water Quality Association
Gary Taubes: Stress. And antibiotics that are being used in our cattle that make the cattle fat. They get into the rainwater. And to me this is an excuse for why we've completely failed to control these epidemics of obesity and diabetes that are worldwide, and we could and should talk about that failure shortly. But the thing to remember, the question is this: We have these epidemics that are worldwide: Every population that transitions to the Western diet and lifestyle, that goes through what's called a nutrition transition, eventually manifests these explosive increases in obesity and diabetes. In diabetes sometimes they do it quickly, in the course of a couple of generations; sometimes it's a little delayed. But it always manifests itself. And you see when people immigrate, emigrate, to the United States from, like for instance Asian populations and they come to the United States, within two generations they've got levels of obesity, diabetes, breast cancer similar to any other Western population. So that's what we're trying to figure out: What's the cause of those epidemics? They are worldwide; we could begin to understand; we could rule out causes by looking for populations that would manifest the epidemics without our suspected cause. The answer to that is probably simple. So, even though obesity and diabetes are considered multi-factorial, complex diseases. I mean, there's some people who think, 'Well, the answer to that question is Western diets and lifestyles: it's the whole shebang,' and, 'if it's food, it's everything that goes into processed foods.' To me, that violates Occam's Razor. Maybe because I grew up in the physics community I have a devotion to Occam's Razor that's more fierce than it should be. But if you don't start with a simple hypothesis, you'll never make progress. So, 'Never multiply hypotheses beyond necessity' is my favorite variation on Occam's Razor. Einstein's paraphrase, which was that 'The hypothesis should be as simple as possible but no simpler.' So, if you start with the simplest possible hypothesis, and the conventional one is that people just eat too much and exercise too little--so, they think diabetes is caused by obesity; obesity is caused by caloric imbalance--
The intestinal mucosal surface consists of a bimolecular lipid membrane, which(presumably) contains small pores or channels. Water and water-solublesubstances can hypothetically enter the cell through these pores only, whilelipid-soluble substrates can directly cross the lipid cell membrane. Specializedprotein pores, referred to as aquaporins (AQP) have been identified in manytissues, including colon epithelium; water channel isoforms in small intestinalepithelium remain to be discovered. Intestinal absorption of water is a passiveprocess and requires movement of solutes. Water accompanies solute and movesacross the intestinal mucosa in response to osmotic gradients. The rate of wateruptake in any region of the intestine is a function of solute absorption in thisregion. All areas of the intestines (including small bowel and colon) absorbwater, the relative amounts absorbed depending on the presence of solutes, and thetypes of solutes present. In the jejunum, the activetransport of sugars and amino acids causes passive movement of salt and water,which accounts for most of the water uptake in this area. In the ileum, mostwater movement is accounted for by active sodium transport.
What do you think of the good old fashion Buff Puff – the science behind it states: It does NOT hurt the skin dermas and promotes collagen etc etc – I spoke to a lady at the mall the other day (actually I almost ran after her when I saw how Beautiful & fabulous her skin is – I wanted her secret) She was very kind and told me she has used Clinique bar soap, & Clinique Clairifying #2 and the Buff Puff for years & years (then she said: “Not bad for a 79 year old!!) WOW! – I did some research on the Buff Puff & found out it was created by 3M and is still owned by them – from the info I was able to find – The Buff Puff still out does all of the brushes, scrubs etc. –