Philip:
> > 	"Each time Barry Groves reports on a medical study he gave a
> > different conclusion to the data than the researchers do...." --Dr.
> > Joel
> > Fuhrman,

Chris Highcock:
> I thought that that was the point?  Sometimes Groves may be making
> the point that the data does not necessarily support the conclusions  
> that are being drawn from it.  There is a whole separate 
> debate about  
> the inherent bias in much of modern peer reviewed science.

Groves wasn't making a point about the bias in science, he was claiming that
the Bang and Feldman studies said that Eskimos had high blood cholesterol
when in fact the studies found the opposite--that they had low blood
cholesterol. He didn't say anything about bias, he just misrepresented the
results of the studies. Whether it was intentional misrepresentation or not
I don't know for sure, but Fuhrman said that Groves has done this multiple
times, so it could have been intentional. Therefore the lesson is, any time
you see Grove cite a study, check out the study yourself. It's a good
practice to check a study when the author is saying something that seems
questionable in general anyway. I knew traditional Eskimos have low
cholesterol, so that tipped me off to check those studies.