Steven Malanga, the senior editor of City Journal and a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, has just published an article entitled "The Washington Diet: Following the government's nutritional advice can make you fat and sick."

He cites extensive evidence that the arguments for a connection between cholesterol and heart disease are based on very scanty evidence, and possibly on erroneous interpretation of ambiguous studies. Similarly, he cites studies involving 350,000 subjects which found absolutely no connection between consumption of saturated fats and heart disease (although not from lack of looking for such a connection). The article even cites evidence that lowering levels of cholesterol could lead to an increased vulnerability to disease, including cancer.

This is exactly the type of evidence that Uffe Ravnskov discusses in his books and scientific articles, as we discussed in this earlier post on the subject dated May 9. Dr. Ravnskov argues that the scientific consensus is absolutely wrong on this very important, life-and-death question over what to eat and how to prevent heart disease.

While the question of what to eat and whether cholesterol actually causes heart disease (or if it is in fact part of an important defense system in our bodies that helps prevent diseases including cancer) is beyond the scope of the Mathisen Corollary (which examines the connection between a theory of a cataclysmic global flood within human memory and the extensive evidence of an advanced ancient civilization not taught in conventional historical timelines of mankind's past), the entire issue is a perfect illustration of the way a "scientific" consensus can take on a life of its own and drown out alternative theories, even if it may in fact be based on incorrect analysis. Dr. Ravnskov also gives examples of the ways the defenders of orthodoxy tend to attack and ridicule individuals who challenge the ruling paradigm, rather than discussing the arguments based on the merits of the evidence (see the previously-mentioned post and Dr. Ravnskov's descriptions of his books being publicly burned by those who wanted to marginalize his arguments).

This new carefully-argued and well-documented piece from Steven Malanga of City Journal serves to reinforce the points we made earlier this month. It also does an excellent job of focusing on the real danger in faulty theories: they can have very unhealthy repercussions in society and in the lives of individuals.

We have argued in the past that the question of mankind's ancient history is not simply an esoteric question for debate between specialists, akin to the famous struggle over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. On the contrary, if we hold a completely incorrect view of our collective past, based on incorrect analysis, it has major ramifications for the way we see ourselves and the questions we ask at this important juncture in history. It impacts very real aspects of our everyday life -- including what we eat (just look at how many diets are based upon Darwinian assumptions of man's origins which may in fact be completely wrong).

Ignorance of our past can also have a deleterious impact on our ability to avoid a slide from technological prowess into outright barbarism. The human record indicates that such a fall has taken place in mankind's past on a scale far beyond the supposed transition from classical Rome into the "Dark Ages," on a scale in fact that would parallel a fall from modern civilization into widespread cannibalism and violence. However, if we don't even recognize that such a fall took place, we cannot ask ourselves how or why it happened or how it could have been avoided.

These questions are every bit as important as the question of whether eating saturated fat or foods high in cholesterol are bad for you or not. In many areas of modern life, faulty theories can hurt you. It behooves every one of us to become engaged in these matters, and to learn to examine such things carefully for ourselves and our families.