[cthalupa]

> I'm surprised there's no discussion here about the inflammatory role of vegetable oils (aka seed oils).

Because there's very little scientific evidence to be concerned about seed oils themselves and a lot to show that they're fine to good for you.

If you want to talk specifically about inflammation, there's not really any evidence that inflammatory markers in humans are increased by seed oils themselves, e.g. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.ATV.0000163185.28...

The idea that seed oils cause inflammation is largely based on mechanistic studies that don't seem to bear out when the larger and more complex ecosystem of our biology is introduced.

> And my question to everyone is, what is the mechanism by which seed/vegetable oils could lead to rashes? The only theory I've heard has been around omega-3/6 balance, but I am looking for alternative theories.

Canola oil has high levels of omega-3s. If it was the omega-3/6 balance theory then it would be one of the best options for oil use.

Individuals can have bad reactions for a variety of reasons, of course. And there is a very high correlation between seed oils and food that is just generally shitty for you, so if you cut them out of your diet you are also cutting a lot of garbage out, which will likely have an impact independent of the oils themselves, and this is likely what drives a good portion of anecdotal positive experiences.

[profmarshmellow]

There are countless peer reviewed studies and articles on both sides of the argument sure - but the sheer volume of anecdotal evidence and the overwhelming consensus across 100K and even 1M+ subreddits against seed oils is unique. You don’t see this level of unified backlash against most other everyday substances.

[KempyKolibri]

Tbh the evidence in the literature on seed oils is actually overwhelmingly in their favour. Studies that find in the opposite direction are few and far between, comparatively.

So then we’re just left with “lots of people on the internet believe a thing to be true, surely there’s something in it.”

Hopefully I don’t need to come up with a counter example here, you can just see how poor an argument this is.

[profmarshmellow]

Let’s not forget the entire field of dietary fat and heart disease was dead wrong for decades while the real culprit was sugar. Alzheimer’s research? Decades of faked studies, costing billions. Peer review is hardly the gold standard if universities are dependent on corporate and government money.

The flood of case reports online about seed oils causing issues makes it obvious there's a problem. Ignoring this isn’t just unwise it’s willfully blind.

At best, seed oils might work for some but they’re clearly harmful to a large portion of people.

[KempyKolibri]

Not sure what you’re basing that claim on. There are boatloads of data suggesting that replacing SFA with PUFA leads to a 20-30% reduction in CVD events.

Does added sugar seem to be a risk factor too? Sure.

There are floods of case reports online about vaccines causing autism, but I’d hope you wouldn’t think that it’s obvious there’s a problem there too? Such reports should not be the driver of our reasoning when we have high quality studies on the question.

[profmarshmellow]

When the public raises concerns or points out issues, it’s important not to take it personally or make it political. These are valuable data points that warrant investigation.

Personally regarding autism, I believe neurotoxins might be contributing to inflammation in the brain, while nutrient deficiencies could be affecting cognitive function, with the root cause of both issues being a fungal infection of the gut, related biofilm formation (blocking nutrient absorption in the small intestine which is where b1 is absorbed) and intestinal permeability. Cross-examine the symptoms of Wernicke encephalopathy (b1 deficiency of the brain) and autism and it is rather surprising how similar these are. Its the rule that the majority of autistic people have small intestinal problems often incorrectly blamed on the brain. The fungal infection is simply an overgrowth due to low number of bacteria. Autistic people have been found to have extremely low numbers and types of bacteria in their microbiome.

Do MMR vaccines have anything to do with this? I would hazard a guess that people with the problem I just mentioned may be at increased risk of adverse events occurring after MMR vaccine intake. Their bodies are already in trouble and MMR vaccines are the straw that breaks the camels back and these case reports online regarding autism and MMR vaccines are entirely valid and useful but the scientific community are unfortunately individually too compartmentalized in their trained medical specializations be it brain, digestive system, infectious diseases and such.

[KempyKolibri]

It sounds like you find speculation based on anecdotes more compelling than evidence from higher up the evidence hierarchy. That’s obviously your preference and you’re welcome to it.

When I’m discussing an issue and my interlocutor ends up having to bite a bullet like “I think MMR vaccines might contribute to autism based on speculation and the reports of people on the internet”, then I’m happy to take my hands off the wheel - it’s now clear their standards of evidence are very low.

Since you’ve openly admitting to it then I’ve achieved what I came to do:

1. See if I’m wrong in my view (it doesn’t seem like I am)

2. Ensure that anyone reading can see that in order to believe seed oils are harmful, one has to have a completely wild epistemic framework. You’ve admitted you think MMR vaccines might contribute to the development of autism based on a completely evidence-free view that such vaccines might be “the straw that breaks the camels back.”

I think this conversation has probably run its course - you believe things based on what I would consider anti-scientific reasoning, as you’re welcome to do. I don’t think wild speculation is a useful tool for making inferences about the world. We’re unlikely to bring each other round to our own views on this, I suspect.