Lies in common: American hisory, PSA testing, Antioxidants, global warming and cholesterol

Ruth Haag
Dec 3, 2013
It is always a bit of a challenge to determine if what you are being told by “experts” is true or not. The book “Lies My Teacher Told Me,” by James W. Loewen, exposes lots of misinformation that we were all taught in history classes in school. For example, none of us were told that Helen Keller was a political radical who helped to found the American Civil Liberties Union. Nor were we told that at least 15 other explorers came to the Americas before Christopher Columbus. Go figure, information that we didn’t need, I guess.
The Global Warming Lies
Sometime scientific “truths” are just as misinformed as our history texts. Every few years an exciting scientific theory comes out that gets everyone upset, and even fearful. Global Warming is an example of this. We all love to debate it and lots of research money is being spent on the concept, yet who can point to definitive research that proves that the atmosphere is really heating up in an unusual way? Here is an analysis that I did a few years ago on one of the graphs often used to “prove” global warming. The first section of the graph data comes from an ice core the southern part of Antarctica, where carbon dioxide is naturally at the lowest levels on the earth. This is followed by other ice cores where carbon dioxide levels are naturally higher. The graph is finished up with a surface air reading in Hawaii. What does this lead Al Gore and you to conclude? Also, look at the pattern from the Vostok ice core for earth carbon dioxide levels over the last 400,000 years. To me it looks like the earth was ready for the repeating 100,000 year rise in carbon dioxide about now. Who should you believe?
Medical Conundrum 1: Antioxidants are good free radicals are bad, or is it the other way around?
The scientific theories that our society seems to get most excited and fearful about are often related to medical research. This research nearly always concludes that, if we don’t all take a certain drug, or eat a certain food additive, we will all die early deaths.
For example, we all know that antioxidants are good for us. We have been told this over and over for many years. We need to drink green tea and eat other foods which have antioxidants in them, in order to remove “free radicals” from our systems.
However, a recent article in Scientific American magazine details how a researcher was unable to show that antioxidants really helped. The idea that antioxidants were good for one’s body came from Denham Harman, a chemist. He said the idea came to him, “You know, just ‘out the blue’.“ He went on to study his idea and was able to produce results that seemed to prove his hypothesis. This all changed when David Gem did a study with genetically altered worms. He was hoping to be able to show that Denham Harman was correct. But, he found that the worms with more free radicals lived longer than the ones with fewer. His study has been confirmed by others. So, are we supposed to drink that green tea, or not?
Medical Conundrum 2: PSA Testing is meaningful
For a number of years now, a Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) test of a man’s blood during a physical exam has been common. It was thought that using the results of the test would determine if a man had the early stages of prostate cancer. However, last year Scientific American magazine published several articles that refute this belief. The US Preventative Services Task Force, and the American Cancer Society now recommend against using the PSA test for otherwise healthy men. The reasons for the recommendation against are that (a) there is no real evidence that this test accurately detects cancer, (b) there is evidence that this test coupled with the anxiety it produces in patients and (c) unneeded biopsies and (d) unneeded treatments actually cause more deaths than the test prevents.. The American Cancer Society recommends that doctors counsel their patients before running a PSA test, so that the patient is aware of the risks that the test can bring on.
Medical Conundrum 3: Cholesterol
While some studies show that lowering cholesterol can lower the risk of heart attack, still others show that taking cholesterol-lowering medication can cause memory loss, irreversible muscle weakness and mood and personality changes. Dr. Golomb of the University of California San Diego has been researching these ill effects. As with PSA testing, global warming and antioxidants, there does not seem to be a clear explanation for how lowering cholesterol really reduces the risk of heart attack. And with the common explanation, there is rarely a mention of how important cholesterol is.
What to do in the face of lies from “authorities?"
We all have to learn which “expert” opinions we are going to follow. I note that the conclusion of almost any public information about health is the suggestion to lose weight, exercise and eat a healthy diet. Maybe this is the answer after all. It’s the one I try to follow. What do you do in the face of conflicting “facts?”



The Bizness

I will take decades of peer review research of over your drawings any day.


Wow! It must be wonderful to be an expert on everything.

The Answer Person

I am outraged at this crap!
What you are missing missy is the fact that EVERY topic you mention has brought AWARENESS to situations and that knowledge is power. Power for people to address situations. For example, before PSA testing, it was a shot in the dark by digital testing for prostate cancer. While the testing may create "anxiety" for some, it is a valid test and has saved lives. Thanks for making some poor gentleman think that PSA testing is not valid and contributing to a potential death sentence through opinion and ignorance.
Why don't you clean up your place of residence instead of writing this foolish blather?

DEEPsix's picture

Answer person.... u are one who actually has a valid answer.... Good for you, and always weigh the weight of a word... some people think S#it is lighter then truth...


What is American hisory?

DEEPsix's picture

The Best MEDICINE, AND MOST ACCURATE INFO ON ALL THE INFO Mrs Haag provides IS.................... KABBALAH. YES, it too is very mystic, accurate onto(?) its readers acumen(?), and, almost always, a last resort for some... but... it is what a certain POWER gave, and.... it cures diabetes, cools hot water, and chills ice flow(s)....
Such a topic as Mrs Haag TACKLED in this article, is to say the least, best left to....HASHEM
BUT, she did tackle it, and to quote the author she quoted, he at one time also said, "in god we trust all else check"...... SOUNDS LIKE A byline from a manual,,, and hardly as wise as Ayn Rand's wisdom.


I can't wait for the Register to have people log in by their own names to see who these nasty bloggers really are in reality, that they can no longer hide behind a blogger handle.

Pterocarya frax...

I guess that settles it. Global warming is a hoax because Ruth said so.

Signed, Al Gore


Climate change, whether it be warming or cooling, is no hoax. The debate is really over whether or not human activities have had a significant effect in contributing to such climate change.

That being said, climate change DOES follow cycles, and, right now, the cycle (which is generally warming, though minimally) is perfectly normal.

And THAT being said, I don't know anybody who would argue that pollution is a GOOD thing! I can't and won't argue against many measures that help to keep the air and water cleaner and any localized damages to the earth at a minimum. The issue, however, is just how far those measures should go and how draconian the punishments and sacrifices ought to be.

Stop It

I can't wait to see the protocols they use to *know* that the person is using their so-called "own name" and how the SR will protect said identity.

The Answer Person

@Darkhorse -- Just so we know here. You ARE OK with people not getting PSA testing and maybe getting incurable cancer as long as no one is offended in an online posting, right? Just wanted to know for clarification, honey.


Anyone who calls it "global warming" clearly hasn't done their homework. The correct term for what IS happening is "climate change". Let's see, we have thousands of scientists who have independently arrived at the same result, that climate change is real, and that mankind is making it worse. About 98% of scientific experts agree that it's real. Most of the remaining 2% were hired by the oil industry or Heritage Foundation, people who have economic motivation to deny obvious data.

Ruth, it's ok to write an article on fringe, unproven points of view, but they should be presented as such. There is a reason why most educated people, and nearly all of the experts agree on what Is and what Isn't. The danger is that many people have a basic mistrust of people who are smarter than they are, and not coincidentally, those are usually the same people that are certain that everything is big conspiracy. These are people who never crack a book, and for whom the newspaper is the closest thing to learning material they'll ever come in contact with.

The points of view you presented belong in the same list as the Flat Earth Society. When you present them as valid, alternate points of view, you are cultivating stupidity.


"remaining 2% were hired by the oil industry or Heritage Foundation"

Please look at population growth over the same period, peoples demand for said oil and it's byproducts such as plastics and other chemicals. The bottom line would be population growth and it's effect on the planet. Oil producers, produce what people desire!

Pterocarya frax...

You said: "Oil producers, produce what people desire!"

So I guess that makes it okay for them to bribe scientists to like about their effects on climate change?


Nobody has to bribe anybody. It is common knowledge that large scale use of petroleum for everything from burning them to spraying you hair or making Styrofoam for a coffee cup will change something. I did however forget to mention deforestation, add in population growth and you have climate change. It is what it is as I said in a previous post, get rid of two thirds of the people on the planet and you will see another change as well!


Correction: a few thousand people with advanced degrees have publicly declared that they agree. Most of them are in fields not remotely related to climate or earth science, such as various medical specialties. Of the signatories who are actually qualified to make such determinations, most of them are on the payroll of big government or entities justified and/or funded by big government. Funny coincidence there, since the proposed solution to the climate "problem" is bigger, more authoritarian government.

Oh, and by the way, it IS "global warming" - there's no one whining about global cooling. The FASHIONABLE term was changed to "climate change" in response to the empirical data inconveniently showing that global temperatures actually dropped since 1998. The buzzwords change, but the message is always the same : The sky is falling and only Big Brother can save us.

Based on her writings, I'd be the last one to extol Ruth's expertise, but based on what you've written and her credentials, she has more scientific knowledge in her big toe than you'll ever have. Your comments on scientific and environmental subjects leave the impression that you would have have been among the thousands at an environmental rally who signed the petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide.

By the way, lest you think I'm simply taking Ruth's word for anything:

-PSA testing is VERY effective at spotting prostate cancer. The problem is the way it's most commonly interpreted based on a single high reading. A sustained pattern of increasing PSA readings is a meaningful indicator; a single high reading is not.

- The lower LDL and overall cholesterol is absolutely correlated with better cardiac outcomes. The fact that achieving it through drugs that interfere with the body's natural processes has negative outcomes indicts one method of achieving lower cholesterol, albeit the dominant method because it's the one requiring the least effort/sacrifice.

AJ Oliver

What coasterfan said . .


Ruth, Thanks for the links.


Thanks for the links. It is always nice when you can follow along with the reasons why folks make the statements they do. You can't, won't, and shouldn't take many of them without background. Just because someone says they KNOW something doesn't mean they do... as has been shown by some commenters, on this article, and many others who don't back their statements, with anything more than I know it and have seen it. No matter how small a sample of statistics (both numerically and/or geographically) they represent.