Really disappointed with the amount of anti-science nonsense coming out of some LCHF/keto folks

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #1

I lived in the US for most of the past decade and a half so I understand how and why this thing has been politicized. I also understand the allure of anti-establishment thinking in the low carb community.

Anti-establishment is one thing. But anti-science is quite another.

I have already lost respect for one particular low carb expert who’s ranting about how the response to covid has been a gigantic overreaction.

Now, I’m quite happy to stipulate that a range of different policies are justifiable – everything from elimination to suppression to the much more lax suppression strategy of a country like Sweden that is commonly called “herd immunity.” But the fact is that even the conspiracy theorists’ precious Sweden has a 50 person limit to gatherings, and they’ve issued strong guidelines to a highly compliant population, leading to a 70% decline in foot traffic in the city center. So not even Sweden thought it a good idea to just let this thing “run its course.”

It was very clear that, had we let the virus just run, it would have been an unmitigated global disaster. You can post the occasional rant from some YouTuber, or some outlier doctor, but then you’re less like a Tim Noakes and more like a climate skeptic or a flat earther. And it’s fine if you don’t believe in a round earth or in climate change, but then you can’t claim to care much about science and I have no idea why you would keep a low carb diet.

The thing about keto is, it works. The thing about believing that lockdowns are an overreaction is that, well, just wait till a few weeks after your state prematurely comes out of lockdown and talk to us then. It’s not evidence-based policy, it’s politics.

I don’t know how to end this except to say: I have no political agenda. Personally I think it’s clear that Taiwan won covid-19, but then they never even had a lockdown. As for every other country, I think Sweden has a point when it says that you can’t evaluate its approach until a year or 18 months from now, but they’re running a very dangerous experiment, the outcome of which is completely uncertain and could be different if it were implemented in different countries.

Lockdowns DO make sense; we’ve had phenomenal success with them for centuries and even millennia, and to argue that the health authorities are out of their minds to implement lockdowns is to engage in pseudoscience. Temporary lockdown is a perfectly reasonable strategy for cutting the legs out from under an uncontrolled epidemic. Along with masks, mass testing, good hygiene, and a range of other measures, lockdown is a critical tool in our arsenal against this thing.

(Give me bacon, or give me death.) #2

People are idiots. I live in hilly city, and every time the schools close or delay opening because of snowfall, somebody on Facebook is sure to complain that the school authorities are wimps. Of course, you can be sure that his tune would be different if it was his kid whose schoolbus slid into a ditch!

Wait till the people who protest the current restrictions find themselves waiting for a hospital bed, because too many people got sick all at once. Then we’ll see what they have to say!


At least Sweden admits running an experiment, which cannot be said about everyone doing something without knowing all details.
But the worst experimenters are those who claim to know but actually have nothing worth the name “scientific base”

(Bacon for the Win) #4

I’m about to take him off my FB feed. Really disappointing.

(migorstmarseille) #5

I’ve removed a few from my Low Carb Twitter Feed list.

(Chris Kornelsen) #6

To say its anti science to be skeptical is a far stretch man. Where I am we have dissimanted our entire economy and so far 100 deaths and only 13 in ICU. There will be 10x or 100x more deaths from economic destruction then this virus and of those 100 deaths 85 are over 70.

This pandemic has taught me more than ever how to not trust any forms of authority and literally question everything. Almost everything coming from any source of main media is verifiable lies.

Sure the virus is maybe serious but so is economic devastation. It comes down to how many deaths are you willing to sacrifice? All decisions come down to that. You (and all of society) deem it worth the price of 400k deaths per year to drive your car. Is the entire economic structure of a country worth less then our vehicles? People will die people always die. When flu season hits 80k deaths you (along with all of society) deem it ok to carry on. Why? So what’s the amount of deaths that sacrificing the economy worth? It isn’t 80k since flu does that. Or is it the possibility of 1 million deaths? And these models come from…the same structures and authorities that tell us carbs are amazing? Who make models on carbs and low fat? Why are those models from experts not trusted but the virus models (whixh all have been wrong) suddenly trusted?

My point in saying all this is it isn’t anti science to be skeptical of this pandemic

(Ron) #7

Could it be possible that these numbers are low due to the “stay at home” “no contact” etc measures that were put in place early enough. It could be entirely possible that if the quarantine guidelines had not been put in place these numbers could have been completely reversed and the death rate exploded. It is all speculative but one thing I think is that economy’s has a history of the ability to recover where as death is permanent. I support the decision to err on caution.

(Chris Kornelsen) #8

Possible yes. 100x more? No way. And 100x more would be 100k deaths which would actually be concerning. But 100x more is a ludacris model. Also I didn’t even mention that the death rate keeps lowering g as we find more people without symptoms. On top of that we can do the math and say that where I’m from we have tested approximately 300k people and its consistently 1-2% infection rate. Which means if we extrapolate to 5 million people that’s 50k infected with only 115 deaths. Which puts the death rate to a pathetically low amount.

(Ron) #9

I still think that your not looking at the big picture. Your taking numbers from what has progressed with the combative measure that were used as defense. If those measures were not implemented there is nothing to say that this virus could have completely overwhelmed the human population and deaths would have been catastrophic.

So annually the flu takes 80k. We are at 80k now and it has been 3 months. Food for thought.

(Chris Kornelsen) #10

I think your overlooking my point. OK let’s say lock down works. Maybe 10fold. Not 100fold. 10fold is still only 1000 deaths which isn’t alot. So even if lockfown works the numbers are far to low. And the death rate is far to low to be concerned.

Secondly my point was not flu deaths vs covid. My point was why are we OK sacrificing 400k to our cars or 80k to flu? Why do we as a society deem 600k to heart disease perfectly fine to risk having the burgers? What number for covid is acceptable and why?

(Ron) #11

Not sure how your figuring. Here is how I am figuring-
there are 300,000,000 people in the US
say 50% were infected with Covid if nothing was done - 150,000,000
now let’s conservatively say 1% of those died - 1,500,000
1.5 million annually is pretty significant and no means to combat in the future is doubly significant.
And I don’t think anyone is taking car deaths and flu deaths as ok sacrifices. That is why safety, education, laws, vaccinations, and a whole lot of people do their best to prevent these.
1 unnecessary death is to many if we can prevent it.

(Vic) #12

How much the stay at home has helped can be debated till the sun comes down

Ive read recently 60% of those hospitalized in NY were following stick stay at home, I know some that got it following stick stay at home one who would not even open the door if someone was there, I’ve read of one that dies from it in a remote village and that it was found in the atoshire as well

Also they have done studies by testing whole towns and found most have had it and didn’t even know it

Does that mean stay at home didn’t do anything I have no idea

Before early on the science was showing only the N95 masks worked at all on the virus, Then later when they wanted to push masks in public then the other masks are OK now?

Its hard to know what to believe when all you see on the news is the politicizing of this virus, besides that there is a lot of power grabbing in govts as well

Besides that there is a lot that does not make sense like releasing so many from prisons, In CA they released major sex offenders violent one but then are putting reg citizens in jail for defying verus regs

I am not anti science but I do know that many times science is often infiltrated by politics and the donors

This is a serious virus I do get that, Way more serious then the Flu I do get that, But I do think also that there is a lot of misinfo and a lot said to heighten the fear as well from both politicians and the news for there own reasons

(Michael) #13

How about this for anti-science?

Professor Dolores Cahill says the following:

Yes, Covid-19 is highly infectious and people die from complications arising from it.

However, supplementation with Vitamin D, Vitamin C and Zinc will greatly improve one’s chances of coping with the infection.

One hydroxychloroquine tablet, costing 10 cents, will provide 3 weeks protection to those suffering exposure to the virus.

Covid-19 is an engineeed test virus that escaped from the Wuhan lab in November 2019.

I don’t like the lady’s politics though as she is on the ultra-nationalist right wing here in Ireland.

The video was released yesterday.

Note: The sound quality and video production are not to the highest standards.


Here in Australia a common narrative has been along these lines: we will know the public health response has been effective, if we all feel a little bit like it’s an overreaction. That will mean that there have been less disastrous consequences than there could have been, and our measures have worked. Essentially, the best possible outcome is - nothing much happens. I am personally convinced by this way of thinking. I also know several epidemiologists through my work, and have a great deal of trust and confidence in population health researchers and their ability not only to consider the science, but weigh that up with broader social and community wellbeing variables. This is a field of science that is very much engaged with the realities of modern society, in my observation. These doctors are not talking to us from a bubble or ivory tower, they are on the ground, in the field, have been on the front lines as Ebola and SARS unfold. This is just my personal observation, YMMV.

However, I am aware that I speak from the privileged position of still (touch wood) having a secure job. We have been very lucky in Australia, in terms of public health. But only time will tell about the true economic cost.

(Full Metal KETO AF) #15

I haven’t ever heard of a death rate this high Ron. In my county of about 224,000 these are our stats.

As is clear we have 30 active cases and a death rate of less than 2%. How is 10% conservative? :thinking::cowboy_hat_face:

Edit: I see the error now, you’re actually proposing a 1% death rate not 10% which I think is reasonably acceptable.

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #16

I remain silent no longer. The utter bullshit nonsense over this is off the Richter scale. The lockdowns and total evisceration of the world economy were based on a model calculated by Neil Ferguson at Imperial College London. His numbers have turned out to be total bollocks. The numbers have been revised several times and are still total bollocks. The data shows only people at risk of death are those who are already frail/weak (the elderly primarily) with so-called comorbidities: mostly obesity, T2D, CVD and respiratory problems. Most of those exposed don’t get it. Half of those who get it don’t even know it. Half who show symptoms have mild symptoms. Hydroxychloroquine treatment started at first sign of symptoms, with or without an antibiotic and/or zinc, works and has been attested by thousands of doctors worldwide, including the USofA. Being put on a ventilator is a death sentence. Deaths have been exaggerated by conflating death ‘with the virus’ presented as death ‘because of the virus’. In the USofA you can thank the CDC for that. The average overall age of decedents is 80+ years old. Who benefits from ginning up world-wide panic? Who benefits from collapsing the world economy - or the economy of the USofA specifically?

(Vic) #17

Especially since the infected rate is way more then reported showing the death rate % is much lower then understood

These tests show over and over again

Around a third of participants in a Massachusetts study tested positive for antibodies linked with coronavirus, according to researchers.

The Mass. General study took samples from 200 residents on the street in Chelsea, MA. Participants remained anonymous and provided a drop of blood to researchers, who were able to produce a result in ten minutes with a rapid test.

Sixty-four of the participants tested positive – a “sobering” result, according to Thomas Ambrosino, Chelsea’s city manager.

“We’ve long thought that the reported numbers are vastly under-counting what the actual infection is," Ambrosino told the Boston Globe. “Those reported numbers are based on positive COVID-19 tests, and we’re all aware that a very, very small percentage of people in Chelsea and everywhere are getting COVID-19 tests."

He added: “Still, it’s kind of sobering that 30 percent of a random group of 200 people that are showing no symptoms are,

(Full Metal KETO AF) #18


So weak, highly vulnerable people should be left to die in order to prop up weak, highly vulnerable systems?

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #20

@TheOrangePimpernel That’s a false dichotomy! There are no absolute 'either/or’s here, only trade-offs. How many children are you willing to expose to measles, and potential death or debilitation, in order to reserve health resources? How many children are you willing to sacrifice because their only nutritious meal each day is at school? How many cancer (heart, diabetes, dialysis, pulmonary, etc) patients are you willing to consign to probable death from delayed diagnosis and treatment? How many lives are you willing to sacrifice to bankruptcy and despair and resultant suicides? Don’t talk to me about people left to die.

The most vulnerable can be protected without consigning the majority who are at minimal risk of serious illness or death to social and economic penury and medical malfeasance.