How Science Gets Settled

A brief little expose on how science – made up of the high priests of our day – gets “settled.”  Remember how, for decades, it was a veritable scientific law that consuming fat, especially animal fat, was what caused weight gain and heart disease, and how the government, scientists, media-entertainment complex, etc., all advocated a low fat high carb diet.  We were told eating eggs, butter, cream, and red meat- completely natural products – would kill you, while eating chemical complexes like margarine and heavily processed sugar laden foods was necessary for good health.

It turns out, all these recommendations were wrong.  It now seems even high salt intake may not be bad for you, especially if you lead an active life, and does not cause hardening of the arteries and high blood pressure as supposed.  In fact, a high carb, sugar-laden diet is probably the primary cause for the growing obesity of Americans and other Westerners.

And, it further turns out, these recommendations did not happen by accident.  It seems that when early research into the causes of coronary artery disease and subsequent heart attacks pointed at sugar consumption as a prime culprit, the sugar industry co-opted scienticians of the day to pretend it was fat that was the culprit, and helped directly or indirectly precipitate the deaths of millions of people:

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.

The sugar-funded project in question was a literature review, examining a variety of studies and experiments. It suggested there were major problems with all the studies that implicated sugar, and concluded that cutting fat out of American diets was the best way to address coronary heart disease.

The authors of the new article say that for the past five decades, the sugar industry has been attempting to influence the scientific debate over the relative risks of sugar and fat.

“It was a very smart thing the sugar industry did, because review papers, especially if you get them published in a very prominent journal, tend to shape the overall scientific discussion,” co-author Stanton Glantz told The New York Times…….

….In 1954, the researchers note, the president of the SRF gave a speech describing a great business opportunity.

If Americans could be persuaded to eat a lower-fat diet — for the sake of their health — they would need to replace that fat with something else. America’s per capita sugar consumption could go up by a third.

I have no doubt, that had polls of narrowly selected scientists been taken in the 70s and 80s, 97% or more would have claimed it was a scientific certainty that fat consumption was what led to heart disease, and that a high-carb, low-fat diet was the best way to ward off the grim fate of a chest-clutching demise.

The implications of the global warming shakedown are clear.  It is already known that self-interested industries and movements are heavily influencing much reported global warming research. There are  literally trillions to be made by solar and other alternative power sources if hydrocarbons can be legislated out of existence.  In addition, powerful ideological motivations are also in play.  I find the idea that the global warming hysteria, and the badly biased, often corrupt (as in made up, fabricated, adulterated, false, etc) “science” on which it is based, is a movement pure as the driven snow and solely concerned with benevolent motives shockingly naive.

Many of the major players in this movement are former communists – watermelons.  In addition to money, virtually unlimited power is also in the offing, the ability to achieve the communist dream of a worldwide centrally planned economy, with strict rationing for all but the anointed nomenklatura, brought about not through violent revolution, but through  the steady coopting of the regulatory apparatus and environmental scaremongering.

We are witnessing a global swindle on an unprecedented level, all done in the name of supposedly altruistic science.  One wonders if the eventual revelation of its total falsity at some future date will not gravely undermine the credibility of the scientific establishment.  I am skeptical it will.  It generally takes quite a bit of evidence to puncture religious belief, and that is exactly the kind of faith people have been trained – and not always without good reason – to have in so-called dispassionate science.

We shall see.  Or we’ll starve to death in the dark, one of the two.