There is a natural human kneejerk resistance to change. That is certainly true when a scientific finding goes against the prevailing view. It may be a bit of “but, we always did it that way” mixed with “hey I don’t want to look bad because I advised something else”. But, there may also be something intentional going on that borders on corruption.
The current red meat issue is a great case in point. The new study in question was a huge review of other studies conducted by scientists who had no conflict of interest. After rigorously eliminating poorly-conducted studies, built in biases and research done on animals (which might not apply), they could NOT find support for the contention that red and even processed meat contributes to heart disease and cancer. Whoa! This turns decades long dogma on its head. Medical organizations, universities, the media, and the big disease charities were not having any of it and were willing to deny the good science it was based on. In fact, some tried to keep the study from even being published.
- “Medicine resorts to censorship when information runs counter to current policy and can embarrass the medical community and those in power. [Some, even the government, resort to internet dirty tricks. Read more.]
- Places like Harvard, which create public health policy, are comfortable with drawing conclusions and making health policy advice based on bad information.
- Medical advice is of varying quality, and sometimes outright wrong.
- Public health advice is not based on good science, but on political agendas.” [Yes. For example, some want to limit meat production because of environmental concerns.]
An isolated incidence? Hardly. Part of the problem is that the government is held up as the ultimate authority. Meanwhile, the federal agencies are compromised by conflicts of interest, longstanding institutional bias, and a revolving door for employees between the agencies and industries like big pharma and big food. Making matters worse, the agencies’ funding comes, to a great degree, from the businesses that they regulate. (Many health charities are also dependent on support from those same industry giants.)
- The USDA’s food wheel of 1984 prescribed 6-11 servings of bread, cereal, rice and pasta per day. Hmm, that’s right about when the “diabesity” epidemic really took off! (See chart below). The agency’s 1992 “food pyramid” was heavily influenced by the manufacturers of processed foods over the objections of scientists. It continued the 6-11 servings of carbs like those used to fatten livestock. That pyramid and the philosophy behind it guided government subsides, school lunches, education, the media and so on for the next 13 years. Subsequent versions of the pyramid and “plate” never did get it right. Excessive demonization of fat in the diet continues.
- There is a long list of the establishment’s vociferous support of actions that are not supported by science. They often ignore flaws in their theories; suppress contradictory research and oppress (even persecute) those with opposing views. Here is a short list:
- The myth that prescribing acid-blocking heartburn drugs for more than a few weeks isn’t deadly
- The myth that dietary supplements are a waste of money
- The myth that a little Roundup, pesticide and fungicide in your food every day won’t eventually hurt you
- The myth that cholesterol kills and statins saves lives in the general adult population
- The myth that the explosion in the number of immunizations is safe– (Pediatricians don’t prescribe the same schedule for their own children. And note that the MMR vaccine for measles, mumps, rubella has long been banned in Japan.)
- The myth that taking a low dose aspirin daily is a good idea
- The myth that flu shots for everyone are safe and effective, while ignoring the impressive history of the homeopathic alternative
- The myth that tight bras don’t cause cancer (listen to our 10/26/19 show to learn what the science says)
- The myth that irradiating breasts with mammograms is not dangerous and meanwhile ignoring thermography
- The myth that nutrition and antioxidants cannot be combined with conventional cancer treatments
Well, I guess that’s enough to paint the general picture. Each one of the items above is worth researching. Just be sure to go beyond the top few search results which are often purchased by the big money interests.