Nutrition Science is a Fraud

InfraBlue,

The target of your attack in the opening thread was "Nutrition Science". In the title of the thread you are attacking an entire field of science as "fraudulent". That is an attack on science.

Here is the problem.... sometimes legitimate science contradicts your point of view. When this happens, the rational thing to do is to change your opinions to match the new scientific evidence. Instead what happens is that people label the science as "fraudulent".

That is an attack on science.

Real science is peer reviewed, independent and reproducible. There is quite a bit of real science if you look for it. Some of it contradicts your political ideology. There is bad science too... it is a skill to distinguish it. But if you label any science that contradicts your ideology as "fraudulent", then you are destroying the value of science to discover objective fact.

Olivier has a good point. Yes, real science needs to be independent of the influence of big money. But the facts are the facts in real science, whether or not big money is on their side or not. The implication in this thread is that if Monsanto wants a scientific result... that automatically settles the question that the result is fraudulent. Of course this is ridiculous.

Let's be honest here about what is happening here. You have a set of things that you believe are true. Scientists have said that these things are not true. Instead of changing your beliefs and accepting the facts, you are attacking the scientists.

You have a case of malfeasance that happened from two scientists 50 years ago. I am sure you can find more cases too, that isn't the point.

For you to say that an entire field of science is "corrupted" is ridiculous. That isn't how science works. There are a whole bunch of scientists working, experimenting, publishing. Some of them receive industry funds, some of them don't. There is a body of work in nutrition science (as there is in any science). The papers get published, peer reviewed, referenced and digested. The claim that a small group of people can corrupt scientific institutions is a convenient way to ignore science, but it isn't rational.

If you believe an entire field of science has been "corrupted", then how to form your beliefs? You have no evidence, you have no research, you just believe whatever you want to believe. I suppose that is the whole point.

Nutrition policy should be evidence based. Individual scientists who act poorly should be rejected, called out and their work should be rejected. But to reject an entire field of science is not rational.

There has been quite a bit of good scientific work on nutrition done in the US and elsewhere. I am sorry if the actual scientific facts don't match your personal beliefs, but that is often the case when you look at facts.

You have found a convenient way to reject all facts (ignoring all of the good and basing everything on a few examples). You are just rejecting bad nutrition science, you are rejecting all nutrition science.

I'm just kidding. Trying to illustrate a point ad absurdum.

Institutional policies dating back 50 years were based on the malfeasance of these three scientists.

Personal beliefs are irrelevant. I'm sure there is good scientific work on nutrition. What are these "actual scientific facts?" Who's to distinguish them and the "good scientific work on nutrition" from the bad?

The same scientific process, and peer review apply to nutrition science that apply to climate science. It is the same system, the same accountability and the same safeguards are in place.

Olivier5 wrote:

I'm just kidding. Trying to illustrate a point ad absurdum.

Now, mention the Nazis, again.

Here is a question for you IfraBlue: before writing this... did you bother to even look at the "institutional policies" dating back 50 years? You are making a claim, I don't think you have any real facts to back it up (other than an anecdote). You have a narrative and I think you are simply making stuff up to fit the narrative without even bothering with the facts. Honestly... did you even check?

You are alleged "widespread corruption" based on one story. Looking at the facts, it sem like the whole fruits and vegetable lobby got to them more than the sugar lobby did,

The dietary recommendations have suggested reducing consumption of processed sugar for at least 40 years. Please explain how this fits with your conspiracy theory.

For example, the dietary recommendations from 1977 (40 years ago) were as follows.

- Increase consumption of complex carbohydrates and “naturally occurring sugars;”and
- Reduce consumption of refined and processed sugars, total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and
sodium.
- Increase consumption of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains;
- Decrease consumption of:
o refined and processed sugars and foods high in such sugars;
o foods high in total fat and animal fat, and partially replace saturated fats with
polyunsaturated fats;
o eggs, butterfat, and other high-cholesterol foods;
o salt and foods high in salt; and

• Choose low-fat and non-fat dairy products instead of high-fat dairy products (except for
young children).

The way you distinguish good science from bad science in nutrition is the same way you distinguish good science from bad when it comes to evolution, or climate change or any other scientific issue.

We have scientific institutions that work very well and a scientific process that is deliberate, transparent, accountable and with a very few exceptions has proven quite successful. To prove your point you have come up with one example of two scientists from 50 years ago. That should tell you something. Our scientific process has safeguards that are pretty damn good (not perfect, but perfect enough that what happened 50 years ago is still exceptional).

Look at what has happened the past 50 years. We have literally cut the rate of death by heart disease in two. If you are over the age of 50, you should be very happy about that.

Here is the real problem...

I am going to assume that you trust science when it comes to global climate change. Why?

The same scientific process, and peer review apply to nutrition science that apply to climate science. It is the same system, the same accountability and the same safeguards are in place.

The fact that anyone would deny nutrition science and accept climate science says more about them then it does about the science.

If you allow yourself to deny science (whatever excuses you can find from 50 years ago notwithstanding), then science just becomes another tool of political propaganda.

Are you getting the point, though, or are you not?

One bad apple in a crate of apples is no good reason to throw the whole crate. No science is perfect or pure. Calling a whole science fraudulent just because some scientists are fraudulent, is to help obscurantism. It's like hoping to get blind because one has seen something ugly once.

I'm just kidding. Trying to illustrate a point ad absurdum.