science itself isn’t at fault for all of the issues related to poor scientific research. there are a lot of politics and special interests that go into what gets funded. everything is motivated by money/power. this is more of a cultural issue than a problem with science.

Anecdotal evidence certainly has its value as well, but the problem with it is all it represents is an observation, not a real test. It is the first part of the scientific method only–telling us what, but not why.

Personally I think we have to be skeptical of all data, anecdotal or peer-reviewed, because as you say, biology can be very non-linear. I let the science inform my decisions, but always try to remember that even if the data is 100% unambiguous (sometimes it is) there can still be more than meets the eye.

For my own health I make my best guess on the science (which is arguably better than most people’s) then do what feels the best for me. I think we all need to do this since we each start at a different baseline.

Thanks for making me think harder today

Fudged data usually doesn’t hold against scrutiny.

The same problem is in the Physics community. They have very firm indication that Relativity (as defined currently) is not working beyond our solar system. It does not work well when accelaration due to gravity drops below a limit. We are getting a lot of artifacts like Dark Matter and Dark Energy. But the problem is economic, rather than scientific. There is no theory to take the place of relativity. Even though we know that it is wrong no one will admit to it. Because if they do what are they going to do. There is no money in trying to work finding a new theory, at least not for the majority. They need the grants which only come when you can show them what you can do in the given time frame.

Economics trumps the Scientific method everytime.

I am a molecular biologist and I am currently working on somatic cell reprogramming. Maybe I should not have said “BS” and I realize you are not arguing against science. I was more or less playing devils advocate.

As far as resetting, awakening or reviving dormant genes……my point is that I do not believe, a priori, that the genes products which metabolize food and which MAY be very similar to those neanderthal genes are somehow dormant. I say “a priori” because I have not found a study which compares the two and thus I have nothing too support or deny this proposition. I also do not know if these genes are the same. IF our genome has not evolved that much, then the genes may very well be similar. It cannot be wholly explained by epigenetics, which we should not forget, alters the expression of and not the sequence of a gene.

On the other hand, last year there was a paper in PloS which showed by gene expression profiling that resistance exercise results in an increase in “youthful” and regenerative mitochondrial gene expression.

A large part of your promulgations can be verified by a few experiments which measure the expression profile of metabolic related genes in cells which are “feed”, a modern energy source vs. a PB energy source. (I just gave away a science paper)

Solid science is out there, it is just getting harder to find it.

I don´t think there is a problem with the Standard scientific method; it is the interpretation of the results which is at fault. As many have already noted, the interpretation is being driven for various commercial motivations.

Sorry my response is a bit all over the place, I am writing a review and 1000 ideas are coursing threw my head and I have to get to the gym to do my 30 minutes of power cleans!