That’s been my point. It is fake science. Not even acknowledging that there are other possible, or factual explanations and data is simply unscientific. When challenged, Mann just stonewalled the court action that he initiated until the judge told him it was over, costs awarded against him etc.
We saw what happened to anyone who remotely implied that cholesterol was not, could not be, a cause of CHD. In fact, they are still on the banned list even though the scientific community and the blog sites all agree that cholesterol isn’t now an issue. They’re still damned, but now for being right!
The information is out there. However, journalists aren’t scientists, and only write about what they are told to write about. What sectors of the press would favour this view?
