I've been to this site before. The apparent aim is to quantify harm done by those who don't believe as the promoters of the site do. Some of the topics listed and/or posts are a bit of a stretch. By listing transcendental meditation as a topic, they are claiming that it is somehow "harmful". I would think that even this group would agree that the positive benefits opf transcendental meditation have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
I would argue that society has been harmed more by beliefs that were once held as "truths" by science and popular culture than beliefs that are currently held as "woo woo".
I bet Mick wants examples.
Ok. I will offer just one now, although I could write a book of them. This claim was completely accepted by science. The person who originally offered the research supporting the claim was named the Time Magazine Person of the Year. I offer this one in particular because it deals with a special area of study. I am a Chef and I was also 75 lbs. overweight at one point and suffered from a variety of health issues. My own journey to find out about and practice a healthy lifestyle is why this particular claim is significant to me. The claim is simply; Fats (in particular saturated fats) are the leading cause of obesity and directly contribute to or lead to heart disease and a variety of other ailments.
I am paraphrasing, but I believe everyone remembers the absolute acceptance this idea found in our culture. Food manufacturers began producing thousands of "low fat" or "reduced fat" foods. We, the general public, swallowed this garbage hook, line, and sinker. The "harm" caused by this flawed way of thinking cannot be overstated. There is no way to judge how many deaths could be attributed to this belief, but I and others who instruct people in healthy eating, STILL struggle to get some to believe that there are certain fats that are essential to our health and well being. In addition, statin drugs have been shown, to my satisfaction, to be dangerous. Thousands still take them in the belief that they must lower
their cholesterol. I have had the good fortune to interview Uffe Ravnskov, a leading, published researcher and outspoken critic of statin drugs.
In addition, my sister is Chief Medical/Scientific Officer for a major
pharmaceutical firm in New York. She just admitted to me this morning that the thinking about cholesterol in relation to heart disease has completely changed, even though she herself takes Lipitor, but she claims she takes it to reduce inflammation.I know there are those at Metabunk that will argue that saturated fats are dangerous. Fine. I suggest you Google Ancel Keys and/or saturated fats and heart disease. The evidence that I am correct in my assertion is pretty solid. I believe that saturated fats DO NOT contribute to heart disease and are not any more likely to cause obesity (other than the fact that they are calorie dense) than any other food. IN fact, I postulate that certain saturated fats such as unprocessed coconut oil are an essential part of a healthy diet.
So why is the belief that "fat is bad" not listed on "What's the harm?"
Like I said, this is just ONE example of flawed science leading to GREAT harm. I am not suggesting that science in general is "bad" or that most research is flawed. What I AM suggesting is that history has shown countless times that scientists often publish research that the media touts as "proof" of something that turns out to be wrong. and in some cases harmful.
As a man much smarter than me once said:
goes through three distinct stages before it is accepted.
1. It is ridiculed
2. It is ignored
3. It is regarded as be self-evident"
Or as Max Plank said:"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die."