By - ScornzDev
Dairy and Agriculture. Diabolical industries.
Cows produce more greenhouse gasses than all the cars in the world.
But is there something health related that they're hiding?
Well there's the whole "your bones will literally turn to glass if you don't drink milk" narrative that's pushed.
Jokes on them I never really drank milk, never broken a bone.
Any day now you're gonna go to take a seat and land wrong and then boom, butt cheek bone dust
E: Butt Cheek Bone Dust is now my band name
Hard to break bones when you're reposting crap all day.
The dairy industry paid off the government to brainwash kids into believing milk is an essential part of a healthy diet. In reality, vast majority of humans can't even digest dairy and it has no health benefits (and quite a few possible harmful effects).
Drank so much milk as a kid because of this. Practically didn't know what water was. Stopped and teen me realized I had been chronically constipated by milk my whole life
Teach your kids to drink water, not milk or juice (both high in sugar). It'll make pursuing a healthy lifestyle so much easier for them when they're older
I grew up drinking soda and crap, been drinking only water for a few years now.
I’m not sure about bribes and such, but there’s a fair bit of a link between dairy and asthma and eczema that I feel gets kept quiet. I quit dairy a couple of years ago and my body is in much better condition for it.
Often in school a diet is promoted containing for example a glass of milk a day and 200 grams of meat. Many studies have indicated that people that eat no meat (vegetarians) and people that avoid all animal based protein (plant based diet) have a way lower chance of getting many heart and cardiovascular diseases. It’s not weird to think that a lot of dietary industries are being paid by animal industries to maintain this image of healthy meat and dairy.
Wouldn't vegetarians tend be more health conscious in general though and skew the results? If I were to take a guess I would say that you can eat meat and be just as healthy, it's just that many people who eat meat aren't health concious at all.
Also makes a difference if you're pounding down McDonald's hamburgers or you're eating a lean, low fat piece of steak, chicken, etc.
There are also people that get sick not eating meat.
Everything in moderation.
All that fucking corn they're being fed isn't helping. Their bodies aren't made to digest it.
The meat industry is fighting hard to stop the lab grown meats from being called meat through the USDA even though lab grown is meat and is far better for the environment and healthier than livestock harvested meat
Also the second-hand sit-on-top plastic kayak market. They're way too much.
Big kayak has been paying off scientists for years!
That’s why I only buy child sized kayaks for my community
Pretty much all industries are diabolical when it suits them. Pharma, manufacturing, oil/gas, military, food, real estate... if there's money to be made in any real quantity, there's someone lying or cheating to make more.
See also: alcohol.
>It was going to be a study that could change the American diet, a huge clinical trial that might well deliver all the medical evidence needed to recommend a daily alcoholic drink as part of a healthy lifestyle.
>That was how two prominent scientists and a senior federal health official pitched the project during a presentation at the luxurious Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach, Fla., in 2014. And the audience members who were being asked to help pay for the $100 million study seemed receptive: They were all liquor company executives.
>The 10-year government trial is now underway, and Anheuser Busch InBev, Heineken and other alcohol companies are picking up most of the tab, through donations to a private foundation that raises money for the National Institutes of Health.
>The N.I.H., a federal agency, is considered one of the world’s foremost medical research centers, investing over $30 billion of taxpayer money in biomedical research each year. The vast majority of the funding goes to scientists outside the N.I.H., which manages the grants and provides oversight.
>The alcohol study is overseen by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, one of 27 centers under the N.I.H. The lead investigator and N.I.H. officials have said repeatedly that they never discussed the planning of the study with the industry. But a different picture emerges from emails and travel vouchers obtained by The New York Times under the Freedom of Information Act, as well as from interviews with former federal officials.
>The documents and interviews show that the institute waged a vigorous campaign to court the alcohol industry, paying for scientists to travel to meetings with executives, where they gave talks strongly suggesting that the study’s results would endorse moderate drinking as healthy.
>An N.I.A.A.A. official, now retired, said she followed up after the presentations with appeals for money, telling industry executives the research could not be done without their support.
Doubt it. When you have an industry of anything, you'll have a market for good and services. It is from here that firms will always try to get a leg up on the competition, and try to bribe those in charge both legally and illegally, whether to get ahead of everyone, or to get what their industry does a blessing of legality.
Tobacco, at least in developed countries, although that’s only because they tried for decades and the science is too well-known now.
Now they just beat up on poor countries who don’t have the money to fight massive legal battles with them.
A lot of 'organic' crops are coated in a bacteria that secretes insecticidal crystals that may be harmful to humans. Just because something is 'natural' doesn't necessarily make it better.
Arsenic is all natural bro, that means it's healthy as shit
There's a USDA list available online that has every pesticide that farmers can use that still qualifies as "organic", most of it is still some pretty toxic stuff.
Insecticidal crystals? What are those bacteria? How did they came to existence?
Bacillus thuringiensis which secrete Cry proteins, naturally in soil, grown and sprayed onto crops in liquid form, genes translocated into GM crops
Fascinating, albeit with a hint of Frankenstein
In that Frankenstein's monster was altruistic and misunderstood? Demonized by ignorant and hateful people who feared the new and unknown?
This is why I use veggie wash on everything.
This is why I'm trying to grow my own veggies. I'm fed up with the food industry.
As a chemist, I cringe when people start talking about organic this and organic that or that GM will kill you. Is it mostly composed of carbon and hydrogen? Then, then it's organic.
Yeah, there are a ton of ways for people to have noticed it's just marketing fluff.
I feel the same way about the "gluten free" trend. Do you have celiac disease? Are you sensitive to gluten? Then no, you don't need gluten free products. You're skipping out on fiber. You're skipping out on some essential nutrients like iron and calcium.
Two different definitions of "organic" :)
That may well be part of his point. The label "organic" is silly. All food is organic.
It isn't like they know what they mean anyway. Anyone who buys into that stuff has absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
Yup. The reason why dairy was one of the food groups for so long was due to heavy lobbying from the dairy industry. Its since been revised to “lean protein” since thats actually what we were benefiting from... minus all the sugar and fat
Kind of... nutritional science has been a clusterfuck since WWII. "Lean protein" isn't really based on research, it's more the bastard child of competing hypotheses.
We started with a hypothesis in the 1950s that saturated fat was the major cause of heart disease. That was enshrined in public policy long before they had done studies to show their hypothesis was correct (spoiler alert: it wasn't). By the time new research started to point the blame at sugar and refined carbohydrates, the anti-fat mantra was taken as common sense and various bureaucrats and lobbying groups had staked their careers and reputations on fat being a great dietary evil. The new research is finally being embraced, but the old mantra isn't being fully rejected.
So if you can't have fat, and you can't have sugar/carbs, that leaves... lean protein. And fibrous veggies, I suppose.
Really the new research suggests fat isn't much of a problem at all. Hence the rise of low carb, Atkins, and keto diets, which are all generally low carb, adequate protein, and high fat.
Absolutely. Finance does it constantly, organic foods is the new food industry take on this sort of thing (pushing their "premium" higher profit foods by making people afraid of the cheaper stuff smaller players can grow easily), fossil fuel industry is still going, lots of medical companies try to fake science all the time, and basically any startup based on bad science, of which there are a lot, trying to bilk investors out of cash.
Automobiles are involved in 100% of traffic accidents on highways and freeways.
Damn, if only we knew sooner.
Right now? Banking, for sure
I’m curious, what do you mean?
Noh of course it isn't, trust me. And it especially isn't happening in pharmaceutical industry with medicine.
The climate change industry.
"Hey Jamie pull that article up"
Are we playing Joe Rogan phrase roulette?
Saunas make the body release heat shock proteins and cryotherapy does the same but with cold shock proteins.
Knew I heard about this somewhere but couldn't remember where. This was on his podcast just a few days ago.
He talks about it all the time
You mean Young Jamie :)
This lie has damaged so many people. It will have a lasting impact for generations. It is deplorable to think that a handful of people would cause so much damage for money.
These sorts of lies also discredit the scientific community. When the people that are supposed to be driven by data and the truth lie, who is left to believe?
Greed is, without a doubt, one of the worst downfalls of our society.
EDIT: I think some people are misinterpreting this statement. What I'm trying to point out is that when scientists are paid off to make bogus claims or studies like in this sugar/fat example, it is hard for the public to trust the scientific community. In actuality, the scientific community itself frowns upon and rejects these ill-minded individuals. That's why there's peer review and lots of editing in journals. Those are the sources that should be trusted. Unfortunately, the media and people like Dr. Oz will often draw attention to the bad individuals and bogus studies, so people are often misled or don't know where to look for the right information.
>Greed is, without a doubt, one of the worst downfalls of our society.
This makes me realize that the love of money is... well, I think it's pretty bad.
Heh, I was trying to remember how that saying goes but it just wouldn't come to my head.
People misquote it as "money is the root of all evil", it's actually "the _love_ of money is the root of all evil"
I was just thinking today how weird the world would be without money. Pretty much our entire lives are making, stressing, and spending money
If only there was some religion that preached that greed was basically one of the highest sins one can commit and if only that religion was the largest religion in the United States... wouldn’t it be weird if Christians got all vocal and mobilized to fight greed as much as they are mobilized to fight sex education and gay marriage?
The problem is that greed is so strong that it has infiltrated many churches in the country. The prosperity gospel and its associated churches have taken the gospel and twisted it to fit the desires of those who don't want to give up their pursuit of wealth.
> The prosperity gospel
The prosperity gospel is quite a scam. It makes you wonder how they can get away with it, but they have a pretty good response that's consistent with what they preach: "Hey, I'm rich because God wants me to be rich."
‘Now buy my book to find out about how giving me money makes god like you.’
I love this comment so much I want to get it pregnant
You can't the comment is a strict Evangelical you have to marry it first
> wouldn’t it be weird if Christians got all vocal and mobilized to fight greed as much as they are mobilized to fight sex education and gay marriage?
Yeah but at least greed doesn't kill people at all! /s
Funny how greed is a sin, yet the catholic church is very likley the single wealthiest entitity on earth.
Because being Christian doesn't come before being one of the group. It's just convenient Christianity.
If those people were seriously into listening to their God, they'd have torn down every mega church and charlatan looking to exploit their stupidity and wouldn't be destroying the Earth they were given stewardship of, all so they can pretend they're not in the crisis they're in and it's those brown people's fault.
There is probably more misinformation and false claims about food and nutrition than anything else.
There really is no "bad" food - just food that's OK in moderation, and food that's better for you. There's also no such thing as "super-food," just food that is more nutritious than most, or has more anti-oxidants, vitamins, or whatever.
It's all designed to get you to buy expensive foods and supplements. All totally unnecessary if you eat a balanced diet, and a moderate amount of calories.
"Too much of anything is not good for you, that's the definition of too much" - Someone (I can't remember who said it)
I always think of this line when people talk about "good" or "bad" foods.
Moderation in all tjongs, including moderation. -Twain maybe?
To be fair, most foods have their pro's and con's. However, some foods are clearly "bad" in the sense that they have no real nutritional value and have a list of con's. Foods that are primarily made up of refined sugars are something that I think can be put in a "bad food" category. Refined sugars do all sorts things to your body that are not good, and they don't have any redeeming qualities to balance it out - other than they are yummy.
> There really is no "bad" food - just food that's OK in moderation, and food that's better for you.
You're not wrong, but at the end of the day humanity is still just a bunch of really smart monkeys. Your brain does not understand that starvation is nearly impossible in modern society so when you taste something as calorically dense as a cupcake or a Reese's Cup the "reward" your brain gives you is [comparable to hard drugs.](http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2017/08/23/bjsports-2017-097971)
Sure, a cupcake isn't "bad" for you by itself, but that's only when you remove the human factor from the equation, which is silly.
It doesn't really discredit science as much as it discredits the science of nutrition, which has some severe flaws. Unlike most science, nutrition is far from a settled science, and scientists even disagree on the most basic of facts. It's extremely hard to study properly, and getting reliable data that is almost impossible. That doesn't mean you can't trust any nutritional science. But you see a lot of people saying fat is the enemy, or sugar is the enemy, or meat is, or whatever. None of these things are bad. Just eat normal things. You don't need to keto, or go vegetarian, or just eat candy. Just eat normal stuff. But I guess it's easier for people to blame a thing and then blame it for all their troubles.
Psychology is another science that is full of inconsistencies. It's so easy to bullshit people using it. For decades, most 'studies' in the field of psychology have been funded by pharmaceutical companies hiding behind the names of fake foundations with well-meaning names. The results of these studies circulate and are taken as fact by people who aren't nearly skeptical enough. Then they buy the pills they think they need for the condition they think they have, all while patting themselves on the back for being so smart.
Also, lead. Literally known to be poison for centuries.
The lead industry in the USA kept legislation against lead at bay for decades. There is speculation (unproven) that the spike in crime and violence starting in the early 1970s may have been due to high concentrations of lead in products, paint, gasoline, and more - which negatively affected the behavior of primarily young male adults of the Baby Boom generation. Nobody is really sure why the rate of violent crime has gone down so much since the 90s - there are other factors - Baby Boomers just aging out of their prime criminal years, stricter sentencing guidelines for violent crime, etc. But it could be, at least in part, due to the reduced levels of lead in our environment.
And the leaded gasoline theory has been tested in other countries around the world. It fits their declines in violence as well (20 year lag from the elimination of tetra ethyl lead).
Fun fact, the same guy who came up with the production method for TEL also came up with CFCs.
he had an uncanny knack for really fucking mother earth
He's been credited as having [more impact on the atmosphere than any other single organism in Earth's history and "an instinct for the regrettable that was almost uncanny"] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.#Legacy).
He also killed himself with another of his inventions. He contracted polio at age 51 and had difficulty doing simple things such as getting out of bed. He invented a system of pulleys to assist him. Said system strangled him.
I felt genuinely bad for the guy. He just wanted to help. But everything came back to bite him in the ass.
no, its the toMATOES THAT ARE POISONOUUUSSSSS!!!
No, they do understand. They just don't want to admit they don't have self control. "X food is bad, that's why you're a lard". There, now they choose if they want to continue killing themselves. They've heard it, it's not ignorance, it's lack of self control.
Look at what happened with marijuana and the war on drugs.
A few assholes raised armies to harm the populations of the world and caused epidemics of overdose deaths.
yup. they learned it from the cigarette industry.
everyone bought the idea and companies started making fat free food.. and everyone in america got fat and heart disease
And what does fat free food need to taste good? Plenty of healthy tasty sugar.
Or the culinary abomination phenomenon of egg whites.
I thought egg whites we're actually healthy
Researchers are finding that Eating cholesterol and blood cholesterol levels are not linked nearly as much as previously thought.
They are but the protein is not as useful for building muscle as we once thought, and the egg yolk is not as harmful as we once thought. The yolk has way more calories so eating just whites is better if you're cutting.
>Healthy breakfast of white bread with low\-fat pb on top.
Don't forget the sugar\-cured preserves!
Hey! They paid a lot of money to be on that pyramid!
Ahh the old pyramid sweetener.
Sugar is on the American food pyramid?
Fruits and vegetables are the base (What you should get the most of). Not real clear on how much should be lettuce and how much should be apple juice. The second layer is bread, rice and pasta. Starches. A starch molecule is just a couple sugars stuck together. Then comes Milk, Yogurt and cheese. Of those three, two are high in sugar. After that comes meats and beans.
I remember during early grade school the food pyramid showed like 12 servings of grains as the base. Apparently you needed to eat like 6 fucking sandwiches a day.
Even my 6 year old brain was thinking "dang, that's a lot of sandwiches. Guess I need to tell mom to pack a whole lunchbag of them."
I really enjoyed that fantasy. I love bread. Damn you, science!
> Not real clear on how much should be...apple juice
Very, Very little - drinking juice is pounding sugar.
At 15/16 one of our science teachers turned up his nose at a student drinking a coke, he then said “for just that bottle you’re better off drinking a beer”. Meaning after the first unit alcohol becomes the baddie, but that at <500ml the beer isn’t as bad as cola/soda
kids have been drinking (low alcohol) beer for 5000 years. Sugar has been ubiquitous for about 30. Diabetes and obesity - about 30 years.
Starches are not the same as the the refined sugars added to processed foods and neither are their physiological effects. It would seem unwise to push the pendulum too far the other way and demonise all carbohydrates in the same way all fats have been treated.
That aside though, I agree that the food pyramid should have no place for fruit juices and other such nonsense.
I figured this out when I was maybe 10 or so. At one point in my childhood my mom started making an effort to watch the things we ate. At the time "fat free" was all the rage. I remember looking at a bottle of hershey's chocolate syrup and asking my mom "this is fat free, does that means its healthy?"
I knew it wasn't, I didnt fully understand why, she had no answer for me. It wasnt until maybe a decade later I got better educated on the things that really cause excess weight.
Americans also got fat and heart disease because:
* portions are huge
* fast food is dirt cheap
* public education on health is insufficient, including in schools.. and lots of kids also are served unhealthy food even at school lunches.
* special interest groups perform lobbying and work public perception on an industrial (pun intended) scale
* state and federal representatives bought by special interests on a large scale
* nobody exercises
I'm trying over here man. 80 lbs so far
From an article regarding [Project 259:](https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-11/p-siw111417.php)
>When the evidence seemed to indicate that sucrose might be associated with heart disease and bladder cancer, they found, the foundation terminated the project without publishing the results.
The worst kind of scientist doesn't publish negative results
Joe Rogan talks about it in almost every one of his podcasts.
Elk. Yoga. High-level problem solving with dire physical consequences.
It's entirely possible.
It's so bizarre. It's fucking bananas.
Concept of a President is so outdated. What we really need is a council of chimpanzees. They'll rip your fucking face off.
Hey Jamie bring up that picture of the ripped chimpanzee.
Chickens, man. Little fucking dinosaurs is what they are.
That chimp is a *mother fucker*.
We should put those chimps on an island and feed em psychedelics.
Yesterday I was lying in my sensory deprivation tank meditating about people going crazy in tiny office cubicles
Eat less bread
I was thinking man this guy does not joe rogan
Oh, fer suuure. 100%.
You know a mountain lion ate my dog once...
A coyote honeydicked my dog.
>Wow...that is so fascinating! Hey did you hear about [unrelated topic]? Jaime pull up that video with that monkey.
Did you know that there are mountain lions in LA?
Literally listening to his podcast right now and looked for this comment lol. Joe is as ridiculous as he is entertaining.
Yep, that’s our Joe... get ready to hear a lot about coyotes and Fritz Haber.
Joe "I have chickens in my back yard (those things are fucking dinosaurs man)" Rogan
You should start your own podcast.
He's not wrong
Well no, because *brings the mic closer* Every 10 years the cells in your body actually completely change. I was reading this article about how DMT can actually advance this process into only taking 6 years because your pineal gland- Jaimie could you get that article up? Yeah but it's because your pineal glands can actually make your cells rejuvenate faster ... Here we go *looks over at the screen* Look at that ... Yeah, that chimp must be what? 400 pounds? Jesus those things will tear you to shreds.
Jamie, pull up that picture of the hairless chimp.
I wonder how boring we would be if we talked for 3 hours a podcast about 3 times a week and how often we would repeat ourselves..
Came here to say this, was watching him talk about it last night.
Have you ever heard the story of William Randolph Hurst and hemp? Hemp is the most versatile material on the planet.
Jamie pull up that picture of Henry Ford.
“Hey Jamie, pull that that video where I talked about this that one time in a podcast.”
men who sold the world.
The pendulum swings. I recall that in the 1970s, there was a best seller about the evils of sugar, and "refined" (white) sugar was considered the worst. Raw sugar was supposedly better for you.
The book essentially blamed all the evils of society on sugar - tooth decay and obesity, sure - but also hypertension, violence, murder, etc.
So after that, I guess it was Fat's turn to take the blame. I remember talking about dieting with a woman who told me that counting calories was unnecessary, all you had to do was watch your fat intake.
She was a heavy set woman.
While the sugar industry did pay for the research and loved the result of the research, there is no evidence that the result would have been any different. The scientist who's reputation is on the line did a lot of studies paid for by a lot of different organizations. He was once paid by the dairy industry to look into the benefits of milk consumption by people after infancy. His published result was the opposite. I'm not saying sugar is good. I'm saying research. All research is paid for by someone and it would do no good if we only listened to that which went against the funders wishes.
Yup. All we know conclusively is that companies funded research into the effects of their product and hoped the result would be favourable. This isn't exactly unusual. It certainly would be an issue if the research was falsified, but while there is evidence of bias there's little evidence that the research wasn't properly conducted. It's also very difficult to say exactly what effect this had, since there was already a large amount of existing research that suggested low fat diets were beneficial. In terms of research ethics, the only thing that was definitely done wrong was that sources of funding were not properly disclosed. Today we require complete transparency in funding sources, specifically to make clear any possible sources of bias. But it's not inherently unethical for a company to fund research into their own product.
Science ain't free, money has to come from somewhere. As long as the raw data is accessible, and there is no reason to believe any kind of scientific misconduct, there isn't anything wrong with industry-funded research.
Except very view papers publish with raw data
It just becomes a problem when people who don't know how to interpret the raw data get their hands on the industry press release. And [there is evidence](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17214504) that funding influences results.
But like you said, science isn't free. This is why educated consumers and transparency are so important.
Wasn’t this an Adam Ruins Everything video?
[Adam Ruins Everything- Low-Fat Foods Are Making You Fatter](https://youtu.be/oLtQLDptI1g)
This video goes a little more into detail about the sugar vs fat debate.
There are so many people who “diet” yet continue to consume soda, candy, and other high-sugar products and can’t understand why they are not losing weight.
The effects are still seen today whenever you see a product with low fat on the label. DONT BUY THOSE. they're way less healthy than their high fat counterparts
While I don't agree in every case (your statement is too general) I do agree for a lot of different foods. "Low Fat" is just put there to make it seem healthy a lot of the time. Like "Low Fat" candy, or "No Cholesterol" bananas (find me a banana with cholesterol lol).
Full fat foods are much more filling and can help keep you from overeating, while giving you your necessary fat for the day. You want more healthy fats if you can, but even a little saturated fat is good in your diet.
...and now most of the USA is obese because they think sugar is healthier than fat.
It boggles my mind how people haven't caught on the fact that maybe both High Carb and Keto diets both work. Why does it have to be either, or?
They both work for exactly the same reason, in that our bodies can only use one energy system at a time. To get in to ketosis you have to deplete glycogen, meaning they don't function at the same time. We are hybrid vehicles if you like.
It's the inflammation that is caused when consuming high amounts of carbs and fats together that cause rapid weight gain + ill health. There have been studies that show fat increases insulin resistance. Insulin resistance is only a problem when you are eating high amounts of carbs. Therefore when following a ketogenic diet, insulin resistance isn't an issue.
Because our bodies prioritize glucose for fuel, when consumed with fat, the fat isn't used for fuel and gets stored. At the same time, the fat causes insulin resistance so the carbs are not transported correctly and end up spiking blood sugar at a higher rate, than in the absence of fat.
In conclusion, don't mix carbs and fats together. Think about it, what whole food in nature contains high amounts of both carbs and fats. There is a reason donuts, cakes and French fries are addictive. It's not just the sugar, it's the combination of sugar and fat!
There is a long and tragic history of industries using bogus science to advance their agenda at the expense of the world.
Fat and heart disease
MSG and headaches
Tobacco and cancer
Fossil fuels and climate change
Capitalism and greed are killing us all.
What's with the MSG one? The bogus claims that it was the cause of every ailment there for a while? What agenda was being pushed by being anti-MSG?
Thanks, I looked it up too after I posted that. Found an article on Science Friday on NPR: https://www.sciencefriday.com/articles/is-msg-bad-for-your-health/
Thanks for yours too. Good reading!
Everyone I’ve ever met IRL still believes that too. They all say it’s bad for the same reason “it causes cancer!! It’s got so many chemicals in it though!!! It’s genetically modified!”
You can add GMO's, gluten and the push for organic foods. Not saying some good has Come from these things.
Well there **have** been some tests that showed the flavors of certain foods (tomatoes) have gone downhill to keep the visual quality high. That's kind of the only negative effect of those specific GMO foods.
TIL that u/scornzdev also listens to the Joe Rogan Experience
*The findings come from documents recently found by a researcher at the University of San Francisco, which show that scientists at the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF), known now as the Sugar Association, paid scientists what would be $50,000 today to do a 1967 literature review that overlooked the role of sugar in heart disease.*
These findings were discovered well after the original scientists were dead, hopefully from diabetes.
I bet that 50k sweetened the deal
$$ is an artificial sweetener. (You heard it here first)
That’s not even that much money! It’s nothing to sneeze at, but seriously?
I'd do some rather unsavoury things for 50k
Scientists are typically compensated so little 50k turns out to be a lot of money for them.
When I was a young man this was common knowledge. Pasta and sugar made you fat, my mother would always be telling my sister not to eat pasta if she wanted to attract a husband. It was real imporant in those days for the young women to be presentable and be good home maker. I remember when my father brought home a young man from the slaughter house home for dinner when Betsy was 17. She made him a nice bacon and scalloped potato supper. But then doctors on the tv and the radio kept telling us to eat low fat, go on a low fat diet, etc and after Betsy stopped cooking hearty meals like that and the young men stopped being interested in her. She didn't marry until she was near 30 and it broke our mother's heart. Well, that and a blocked artery.
Username checks out?
Yeah, this was shady, but the MUCH larger problem here is this:
> "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.
Did you get that? Do you understand the implications?
If a little money under that table to nudge ONE published study can "shape the overall scientific discussion", pushing it in *the entirely wrong direction for decades*...then pretty much the entire edifice of peer-reviewed science is just well-dressed religion.
That's not an exaggeration. If ONE study can mislead the country's (world's?) best scientists—whether publicly or privately funded, government or corporate—for *decades*...how much faith can we put in the current "corrected" dietary regulations? How much faith can we put in the global warming consensus? Ethanol/biofuel? Studies of homosexuality? Domestic violence? Because it's not only money that can bias these studies, but any sort of agenda. And everyone has an agenda.
Greedy corporate meddling is a real problem, moreso in some areas than others. But the fact that nearly all of "science" is really just another conglomeration of preferred narratives, dressed up in a credible-sounding facade, promulgated by people who are supposed to know better but apparently can't see past their own tribal groupthink noses is a MUCH larger one.
The only alternative to this explanation is that this particular study *didn't* actually have much influence on the broader scientific discussion...and that all the dietary scientists are actually just idiots who weren't influenced by each other but all kept making the same mistakes in their studies. Which is even worse.
**edit:** seriously, people? You're bitching about one small example of the corruption of science, and downvoting a comment talking about the implications of that corruption at scale?
I think it's why a lot of people don't trust science anymore. When the government starts handing out grant money for biased 'science' then it is definitely an issue. It used to be that you had to have peers replicate your findings, but now just one single study and it's basically presented as 'proven fact' on the interwebs.
If you have a masters in science, then what do you suggest needs to happen for the credibility to come back to the scientific realm? It seems that corruption has killed reliability.
I sure wish there was a simple, straightforward solution.
Some of it is political, but a some of it is just shitty science. The review committees of most journals these days—even the prestigious ones—appear to be rubber stamps more than actual reviewers. The broke-ass, dollar store methodologies behind so much of it—and practically everything in the social sciences, which heavily influences governmental social policies—doesn't even pass the laugh test.
> ...sugar industry quietly paid off some scientists...
It was a sweet deal, I presume :-)
Looks like it was money well spent for the sugar daddies.
There's still so many people that believe this - also that even the tiniest amount of sodium will kill you. Despite the fact that total sodium depletion will kill you.