Not very.
Like I said earlier, you seldom hear "lipid hypothesis" outside conspiracy theory groups. I would say I'm pretty familiar with the current understanding of atherosclerosis and the role lipids play in plaque formation, which is something you demonstratively knew little about before the beginning of this thread. And yes, I admitted unfamiliarity with all the details of the original lipid hypothesis, as it was postulated probably a good hundred years before I was born. I doubt you know much about it either, especially considering you don't know much about the current understanding of it.
It's called the lipid hypothesis by conspiracy theorists and supporters alike because that's the name of the theory. Scientific theories have names so people know what other people are talking about. Have you heard it called anything else?
Also how do you know what I knew or didn't know before this thread was created? If you're unfamiliar with the original lipid hypothesis then don't comment when people who do know about it are talking about it. Especially don't call them conspiracy theorists because it was your first inclination to do so. Face it, you were arrogant and jumped to stupid conclusions about the quality and method of discourse here and now you've retreated to neutering your argument to the point where it had nothing to do with the original discussion.
I thought I was fairly clear. Is there anything you would like me to clarify?
Yes. When we talk about the myths concerning cholesterol and saturated fat in regards to the original lipid hypothesis why do you constantly introduce new concepts like inflammation and LDL as a defense for the hypothesis when they are clearly a refutation of it?
I'm saying they're the best equipped to draw conclusions.
I think they'd more than likely come up with the better conclusions as opposed to your average layman. But if you want to be precise: the person who is best equipped to draw the conclusions is the person who has the best analysis and evidence on his side, regardless of credentials or background. Can you disagree with that last statement?
But you're not content to just say that experts are likely the best equipped. You go further to say that only these people SHOULD be worried about adding to the understanding of science, and that non-experts that attempt to do so are either arrogant or ignorant. Then you take some sort of condescending tone in asserting not participating in discourse is somehow a much more clever strategy.
What exactly do you think I'm ignorant about? This should be good. I'm not anti-research. I just favor learning in a more traditional fashion. It usually leads to better results.
You're ignorant about your own ignorance, and about the ignorance of scientific community itself when it comes to this particular topic (and this most likely means you take the same approach to other topics). An adherence to tradition and the status quo doesn't lead to better results in science. Skepticism and an unrelenting desire to get things right is what leads to better results in science. Richard Feynman can probably explain this idea to you better than I can.
Not very.
Like I said earlier, you seldom hear "lipid hypothesis" outside conspiracy theory groups. I would say I'm pretty familiar with the current understanding of atherosclerosis and the role lipids play in plaque formation, which is something you demonstratively knew little about before the beginning of this thread. And yes, I admitted unfamiliarity with all the details of the original lipid hypothesis, as it was postulated probably a good hundred years before I was born. I doubt you know much about it either, especially considering you don't know much about the current understanding of it.
I thought I was fairly clear. Is there anything you would like me to clarify?
I'm saying they're the best equipped to draw conclusions.
What exactly do you think I'm ignorant about? This should be good. I'm not anti-research. I just favor learning in a more traditional fashion. It usually leads to better results.
