Re: Lack of omega-3s can contribute to childhood obesity

Hello.

Re:
"
Can you clarify and elaborate what you mean by your comment?
"

They're clueless because they've gone around the problem 'full-circle' so to speak for a really long time and even then haven't been able to observe what really seems to be going on.

It's all junk science, JUNK, because based on the observations of number patterns one could almost find a correlation anywhere and in anything. After all, it's all mathematics, this system of things.

It's nice and neat to go around taking 20 years' worth of a researcher's work and his life and then to make apparently obvious observations between one pattern and the next and to draw absurd conclusions. 'Anyone' can do it. How many times has coffee been dubbed both "harmful" and "harmless" one time after the next? Personally I can't remember, but it's been done many times, and I bet my lab that those studies were EXPENSIVE. Imagine a couple million dollars just to tag "fat" as harmful. Then imagine what it all implies in consequence. 'Zero fat' food everywhere and health down the drain.

That's just one aspect of the comment. I won't bore you guys with more.

By that token, then, if I study 100 smokers and I find that 1/2 or so of them crave chocolates, then is it not cool of me to go out and say "Cigarette smoking induces chocolate intake", and to make tons of money for it while bringing disinformation to everyone who I'm supposed to represent in terms of the highest knowledge?

Merits, ovations, distinctions and all the hefty grants that follow it are quite desirable for many. What about the Truth?

Just my opinion.