ObiWanKenobi wrote:I prefer listening to clinical professor of medicine at the University of California
No, you prefer listening to a sensationalist press release which is completely undermined by the details of their paper.
And I suppose "Clinical Professor of Medicine at UC" sounds more useful than "President and founder of the nonprofit Preventive Medicine Research Institute, Sausalito", "Board Advisor to PCRM, a front organization for PETA" or "Bestselling author of several books on the The Ornish Diet"
Like the fact that they only used normal, healthy tissue for the microarray samples - not the tumour tissue. So any changes in expression are in *healthy* tissue. It's a bit like trying to tell why you're getting the blue screen of death on your PC by testing the power cable's fuse.
Another reason why the paper tells us the cube root of zero about prostate cancer and how to treat it.
The more I read of that paper, the more I feel PNAS should be ashamed of publishing it. Don't get me wrong, I like PNAS. But this paper is almost as much of a crock of shit as the one Linus Pauling put in to PNAS about vitamin C in the 70s.
ObiWanKenobi wrote:Let's sum up the fails of today briefly:
A. OWK doesn't understand what "confounding factor" means
B. OWK keeps going on about Ornish et al. which tells us nothing.
C. OWK thinks that not putting milk in your green tea means you must go on a vegan diet
D. OWK still thinks the Daily Mail and 30 second segments on CNN reposted on Youtube constitute credible scientific reports
E. OWK thinks that meat is the sole cause of cancer, and that far stronger risk factors which we can mitigate against are of no importance
F. OWK thinks that animal studies are an argument winner on a vegan website
A+B+C+D+E = F for Fail.
Corrected that for you.
I'm glad The Duke, for one, sees where I'm coming from.