Sweet Tooth for Fake Science

Timothy Birdnow

Looks like the attack on dietary fat was born out of manipulated science.

From NPR:

In the 1960s, the sugar industry funded research that downplayed the risks of sugar and highlighted the hazards of fat, according to a newly published article in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The article draws on internal documents to show that an industry group called the Sugar Research Foundation wanted to "refute" concerns about sugar's possible role in heart disease. The SRF then sponsored research by Harvard scientists that did just that. The result was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, with no disclosure of the sugar industry funding.

It always baffled me how the powers that be blamed dietary fat, when people had been eating fat throughout history with little problem. The big problems with coronary diseases and diabetes and obesity came when everyone started drinking vast quantities of Coca-Cola, eating ice cream at home, etc. And with pre-packaged foods they always have to add sugar to make them taste right - and salt to balance. So the America consumption of sugar skyrocketed in the '70's, at the same time everyone started getting fat.

Here is something for the irony-impaired NPR crowd:


Isn't this how Global Warming has been pushed so hard? The Gang Green, the environmentalist lobby and their pretty-in-pink socialist brothers have systematically subverted peer review and seen to it that only papers that promote hysterical claims of doom were published. We know this from the Climategate e-mails, in which the "hockey team" of top climatologists openly conspire to bully journal editors or get them replaced with believers, to peer review each-others' papers, to blackball "denier" scientists. And they have gotten away with it, because the public was never told by a complicit media.

Global Warming isn't the only example of this, but it IS the most spectacular. We've also had Global Cooling, Nuclear Winter, Dioxin, nuclear power, any number of medical research, and almost all psychology. Vaping is another example; they are in the process of using "science" to demonize the practice, which came about when liberals complained about the health consequences of tobacco smoking. It was a healthier (not healthy, but healthier) alternative to puffing the butt.

Science has been politicized, especially since the late seventies when the government took over almost all funding. Now what gets published is work that supports things the government wants.

It may have been true that sometimes an industry was able to influence the thinking on an issue by funding research, but it was only one stream of funding and could be refuted by researchers without an agenda or with another agenda. Now, with the Big Dog paying the bills, no alternative research can exist, or at least compete. Science was always about testing hypotheses, especially alternate hypotheses against each-other. But when the money is all on one thing you no longer have science but political research.

BTW, it's interesting to note the main study that gave us the sugar craze was done at Harvard. Not Texas A&M, or Nebraska, but at the Ivy League's premier university, the citadel of liberalism.

After doing a study that was likely funded with taxpayer dollars, the authors conclude:


And instead should believe only studies produced by your friendly Washington bureaucrat.

Good luck with that!

Hat tip; Tim McNabb.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 03:16 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 612 words, total size 5 kb.