In 1955, nutrition researcher Ansel Keys took the stage at a World Health Organization conference and presented a theory. He suggested, based on the fat intake of six countries and their corresponding heart disease rates, that saturated fat increased the risk of heart disease.
Although he met with a dubious initial response from his colleagues, Keys repeated his Diet-Heart Hypothesis until it gained popularity and landed him on the cover of Time Magazine in 1961. (1)
This theory became accepted as common fact, then fortified with financial influences. For example, The American Heart Association stamped its Heart Healthy label on food products when corporations paid for it.
Kellogg’s Cocoa Frosted Flakes even flaunts the label! In 2002, the American Dietetics Association received $2 million for the use of this “heart-healthy” label. (2)
The U.S. Governments “Dietary Goals for the United States,” published in 1977, encouraged Americans to reduce high-fat meats, dairy, and eggs even though the evidence for this advice was shaky at best, cherry-picked at worst.
The U.S. Food Pyramid, created in the early 90’s, told the country to obtain the most calories from grains, while minimizing saturated fat intake.
Government subsidies, in place to ensure cheap agricultural crops like corn and soybeans, played a huge role. The American public was encouraged to more grains and less fat partly because it benefited the subsidy system, and not because it was nutritionally optimal. (1)
Americans started eating minimal saturated fat, relying instead on low-fat foods made with more sugar, processed oils, and additives. Rates of chronic disease such as diabetes and heart disease climbed steadily.
Finally, mainstream science caught up with what our bodies have always known: we need fat, particularly saturated fat, from whole foods (3, 4). Additionally, highly-processed “heart healthy” oils like corn and canola oil promote inflammation (5).
In June 2014, Time Magazine backtracked on 30 years of low-fat dogma with a cover stating, “Eat Butter. Scientists labeled fat the enemy. Why they were wrong.” (6)
For decades, the “trusted experts” like dietitians and doctors considered the Diet-Heart Hypothesis a fact. But now we know: the Diet-Heart Hypothesis was pseudoscience.
What is pseudoscience?
Merriam-Webster defines pseudoscience as “a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific.”
As the Diet-Heart Hypothesis shows, the difference between science and pseudoscience is often simply a matter of time. What was once mainstream “scientific fact” is now pseudoscience in hindsight.
Consider “race science” — the belief that white people are of a scientifically superior race than black people. This view was highly influential in the mid-1800’s. Of the two leaders in this field, one taught at Harvard and one was president of a key scientific society in Philadelphia.
They had all the trappings of expertise and presented “scientific facts.” Of course, now we recognize their research as pseudoscience that confirmed their white supremacist beliefs. (7)
Or consider when doctors diagnosed women with hysteria when they had normal sexual desire, at a time when it wasn’t ladylike for a woman to have any sexual desire. Early medical texts tended to blame everything from kleptomania to fevers on having female sex organs, which we know recognize as a sexist and pseudoscientific belief. (8)
It was also a “scientific fact” in the early 1800’s that women were intellectually inferior to men, due to the smaller size of their heads. Again, we now recognize this as pseudoscience. Sexist “experts” were, intentionally or unintentionally, using science as a mirror to reflect their biases. (9)
Consider also when homosexuality was considered a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). It wasn’t until 1973 that the American Psychiatric Association removed this diagnosis.
The DSM is the textbook for diagnosing mental illness, considered scientific and vetted by experts. Yet, when it came to the normal spectrum of human sexuality, medical texts simply reflected the homophobic biases of the time. (10)
Given all that, do you think it’s possible science still mirrors the unquestioned biases of our time?
History also reveals that financial incentive clouds the public’s ability to know science from pseudoscience.
Remember when a pack a day keeps the doctor away?
Lawsuits against the tobacco industry led to the release of internal documents and research. These documents reveal a systemic, calculated approach to manipulate data on smoking risks.
Author Lisa Bero reports on these techniques, saying that the tobacco industry:
- Funded research to control the research questions asked of tobacco safety
- Employed industry-hired lawyers to design the studies
- Suppressed research not favorable to the industry
- Intentionally provoked controversy and discredited non-industry-funded research (11)
The chemical manufacturing giant DuPont used the exact same tactics, particularly around the toxicity of the Teflon (the non-stick chemical). Again, lawsuits were brought against the company led to the release of internal research.
DuPont has systemically hid a mountain of data showing that Teflon caused health problems and birth defects. They created catastrophic health problems for their employees, customers, and the ecosystem.
It took a 20-year epic legal battle for DuPont to make some financial amends for their callous disregard for human life. (The recent movie Dark Waters dives into this — I highly recommend watching it.)
For the decades, the tobacco industry and DuPont orchestrated their own teams of lawyers, spokespersons, medical experts, and scientists to control research and public image.
As a result, many people believed these products were safe because science says so! Doctors and experts agree!
Only in hindsight did we reveal the true science, that these are life-threatening substances.
Given all that, do you think it’s possible we’re still repeating this pattern?
Just look to the pharmaceutical and 5G industries for a hint. These industries are employing the exact same tactics.
For example, 1 in 4 American women are prescribed antidepressants. Dr. Kelly Brogan wrote a comprehensive exposé on these drugs. When all research— not just studies funded by Big Pharma — are considered, the most common type of antidepressants (SSRIs) are no more effective than placebo in alleviating depression. But unlike sugar pills, antidepressants carry severe risks.
Or consider 5G, the next generation of wireless technology you’ve been hearing so much about. 180 scientists and doctors appealed to the European Union to reconsider the implementation of 5G, based on its proven health risks. (12)
Yet, the telecommunication industry has presented their own funded research to discredit other data. (13)
Many un-affiliated scientists and doctors are concerned we’re repeating history, and that countless lives will be lost or made chronically ill.
It may take decades of preventable death and illness before, once again, an avalanche of lawsuits reveals how these companies persuaded the public with mere pseudoscience.
History on Repeat
Let me sum up so far:
- What we now consider pseudoscience was once a mainstream scientific fact
- Political influences (remember the Food Pyramid) and financial bias (remember cigarettes and DuPont) led people to make choices that harmed their health
- Many doctors, researchers and scientists unknowingly shared falsified, manipulated data and the public believed them they were “experts.”
So… what if history is repeating itself right now?
If you didn’t know, the content of frontline doctors, nurses, and extremely qualified scientists are being deleted from platforms including Facebook, Youtube, and Instagram.
Why? Because they conflict with the “scientific” narrative presented by the CDC and WHO.
I opened a discussion on my Facebook page around the censorship of data, research, and experts who contradict the mainstream COVID narrative.
In this discussion, many people told me a version of, “Scientific facts over dangerous opinions!”
If you truly value science and medical progress, however, that means you value:
- identifying funding bias in research
- eliminating political bias in research
- examining the data and evidence, rather than discrediting the individual because they’ve been labeled “conspiracy theorist”
To do all this, people need access to the full spectrum of data and information.
Censorship has always held back scientific progress. This was true even in the 1550’s, when the Catholic Church banned Copernicus’ revolutionary book on astronomy.
I, and many of my colleagues, have been profoundly impacted by sharing the views and research of medical experts who disagree with the mainstream narrative.
In fact, my instagram account was blacklisted! Instagram removed my account search and hashtag results, and hid my content from followers.
I started a brand new account — please follow it here. I will continue sharing information to support healing your relationship with food, as I did on my previous account.
Do You Have Enough Information?
Many people currently obtain all their information about health and current events from social media and mainstream media. Platforms like Facebook and Youtube are censoring information and data that conflicts with the positions of the World Health Organization (WHO) and Center For Disease Control (CDC). (14, 15)
But is that trustworthy information? Is it enough information?
Consider, for example, that the WHO currently recommends a low-fat diet and suggests choosing canola and soy oil over coconut oil and butter! (16)
They’re also touting the debunked advice to reduce sodium intake (have you seen the breadth of data refuting that?).
It’s 2020 and their nutrition advice is pseudoscience from 1970. Imagine currently relying only on the WHO and CDC for nutrition information!
Given all that, I leave you with one question:
Why should we rely only on WHO, CDC, and mainstream media for COVID information?
If you think that’s an important question to ask, please pass on this article.
I also invite you to sign up for my newsletter here to ensure you receive my future articles. Now that social media is censoring my work, email is the best way to stay in contact with me. (I respect your inbox and send out articles a few times per month.)
Be well and keep asking questions,