Scientists and Researchers Bribed to reach a specific conclusion....

Tell me it ain't so! Scientists and researchers don't take bribes to make sure their "studies" reach the conclusion their funders desire! Aren't they supposed to be above this sort of thing?

Even though this happened decades ago, it changed approaches to health and nutrition that have affected us even up to today.

The sugar industry paid prestigious Harvard scientists to publish research saying fat - not sugar - was a key cause of heart disease, newly unveiled documents reveal.

The findings, revealed today in a special report in JAMA Internal Medicine, has sent shockwaves through the research community.

'Funding research is ethical,' Nestle said.

'Bribing researchers to produce the evidence you want is not.

Archives from the University of Illinois and the Harvard Medical Library reveal that the foundation set the objective for the literature review, funded it and reviewed drafts of the manuscript.

The researchers also reviewed symposium proceedings and historical reports.

WHAT WE NOW KNOW ABOUT SUGAR'S LINK TO THE HEART
Today, we are urged to limit our sugar intake as much as possible.

Women should have no more than 25g (six teaspoons) of added sugar per day.

That is less than a can of Coca Cola.

Men should have no more than 36g (nine teaspoons) extra.

That equates to a regular Snickers bar.

Sugar, peer-reviewed studies now show, triggers insulin resistance, lower good cholesterol and dangerous bad cholesterol.

It also causes inflammation of the arteries.

These are all direct causes of heart disease. HA

How the sugar industry paid researchers to skew results

It makes one wonder what else gets funded to show skewed results for the profit of some industry or even some new government tax.

No, it doesn't go on.

And man made climate change evidence was never manipulated to the contrary. Ever!!

a reply to: queenofswords

I have precious little respect for the entire medical community. There is no "human" in their humanity anymore. All about $$$$$$$$$$$. Bottom line.

Most likely any study funded by the government is going to be skewed in the direction they want, and probably most that are funded by big companies such as Monsanto and even nestle ,which wants to take control of the nation's water supply
.

"Science is not always what scientists do."

- J. Allen Hynek

a reply to: queenofswords

Hmmm big business lobbying to get people to say what they want so their profits are not cut into.

Wonder who tops the Forbes list.

Also just because it has been recorded as happening, it does not mean every study has to be branded as such.

Even though this happened decades ago, it changed approaches to health and nutrition that have affected us even up to today.

So an incident decades ago proves...?

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
No, it doesn't go on.

And man made climate change evidence was never manipulated to the contrary. Ever!!

Well then the other side must be doing the same thing right? Or are they keeping the money out of it?

originally posted by: DJW001

Even though this happened decades ago, it changed approaches to health and nutrition that have affected us even up to today.

So an incident decades ago proves...?

Have you seen how detrimental this "one" incident has been upon the population?

Heart disease is rampant and all one needs to do is look at the copious amounts of sugar in literally everything!

It also gives weight to the destructive nature of things such as Aspartame, Artificial/Natural Flavors, the food dyes, GMO's, and the rest of the un-natural ingredients found in grocery stores across America.

Of course scientists and researchers are paid to find evidence, the contract stipulates what to look for. There is nothing illegal about that, it has been going on for many decades. My father used to talk about that to his brothers and father when I was a little kid, I am a third generation conspiracy theorist. The thing back then is you talked to close friends and relatives in private about those things, public talking was not considered correct. Most people knew what was going on but they shunned people who would start things because these companies would go out of the way to threaten people back then.

Whenever a scientist gets parameters that they have to follow, they have to follow those parameters or lose their funding and jeopardize future contracts. That is just the way it is, it costs money to do research. No use complaining, that will never change.

Even today, there is a sugar epidemic. Even though we now know the horrible effects from it, people seem to have a dependency on the stuff. Why are food companies still putting so much sugar in everything?

It is in salad dressings, peanut butter, some luncheon meats, fruit juices have added sugar, crackers, bread, yogurt, pasta sauces, granola bars, breakfast cereal, energy drinks, canned fruit, ketchup....the list goes on and on.

I read an article the other day (I think it was written by Tim Gunn of Project Runway fame) and the average clothing size of women today is 14 to 16!!! He didn't address the men, but I don't see them looking any more trim and fit than the average woman.

The point of this thread is to say, dishonesty in scientific and medical research has consequences. The results affected an entire generation and then some!

It is appalling that the very people (scientists and researchers) we put trust in to give us the scientific truths and honest results of studies are no different than anyone else.

They can be bought. "You want the results to indicate something specific? We can do that? How much are you willing to pay?"

originally posted by: DJW001

Even though this happened decades ago, it changed approaches to health and nutrition that have affected us even up to today.

So an incident decades ago proves...?

Oh, sure, and orange juice is so goooood for you, scientific studies have shown....

originally posted by: Aliensun

originally posted by: DJW001

Even though this happened decades ago, it changed approaches to health and nutrition that have affected us even up to today.

So an incident decades ago proves...?

Oh, sure, and orange juice is so goooood for you, scientific studies have shown....

I know, right? We have been told a glass of orange juice is so good for you----(brought to you by the orange growers association of America).

When discussing sources of “hidden sugars” with my patients I find that they are often very surprised at my position on orange juice. Essentially, I have taken it off the table. Frequently, the response I get is, “But what about the vitamin C?”

The reality of the situation is that yes, a glass of orange juice does indeed contain some vitamin C, but that fact hardly outweighs the fact that O.J. is just loaded with sugar. A single 12 ounce glass of O.J. contains an incredible 9 teaspoons of sugar, about the same as a 12 ounce can of Coke! This equates to 36 grams of carbs, about half of what you should consume in a day.

Let’s do a little math. If a person were to drink just one glass of orange juice each day, that would mean that he or she would be consuming an extra 3,285 teaspoons (close to 70 cups) of sugar in a year or about 53,000 extra calories.

This likely translates to unwanted weight gain., and as we’ve just learned from a study published last week, sugar consumption worsens blood pressure and cardiovascular risk markers, even in the absence of weight gain.

So if you’re concerned about vitamin C, sleep easy knowing that you’re probably getting enough in your multivitamin. The cost to your health from the sugar load in a glass of orange juice should justify your decision to opt out.

The #1 Reason to Avoid Orange Juice

When I want orange juice, I'll just eat a nice juicy orange---one.

originally posted by: BiffWellington
"Science is not always what scientists do."

- J. Allen Hynek

Exactly.

Scientists, like the rest of us, have bills to pay.

And, like the rest of us, they do whatever they must to pay them.

"Truth" for sale...

This is something I'm pretty into. It's a balance of genetics and input/output of energy/food. I eat pretty good but I like sugar. I get crap all the time about pounding Dr. Peppers and eating snickers. Im 9% body fat at 190lbs. I work out a lot and have a demanding job as a fireman.
Trying to not sound like a douche, but I get told I "look" jacked all the time. If someone with a history of obesity ate the same things I did...,I don't know? Maybe they would gain maybe loose a few. But I consume a lot of sugar and have perfect blood work and vitals. I guess I'm saying there is not a meal plan you could give to two people with very different genetics, and no matter how long they stayed on that diet would they EVER be the same build, body fat, blood pressure, or cholesterol. reply to: queenofswords

originally posted by: JHumm
Most likely any study funded by the government is going to be skewed in the direction they want, and probably most that are funded by big companies such as Monsanto and even nestle ,which wants to take control of the nation's water supply
.

And Proctor & Gamble, and General Mills, and Kraft, and Corn Lobbyists...and the FDA.....

This has been going on for decades.

a reply to: queenofswords

It makes one wonder what else gets funded to show skewed results for the profit of some industry or even some new government tax.

Probably a lot of the findings supporting the beloved name brand/big brand foods.

Sugar feeds cancer, diabetes, obesity, etc. To say only naturals-honey, etc, is safe in restricted doses. I'd say it's pretty much the same for HFCS being touted as alright as well as the "low fat diet" fad foods pushed on consumers.

a reply to: queenofswords

Lmao so now orange juice is unhealthy because it has a bit of sugar? This fear of sugar annoys me a little bit because it makes many people switch to artificial sugars, which are arguably far more dangerous to ones health. Also sugar is a very good source of energy, there's a reason our taste buds evolved to like the taste of sugar so much. A little bit of sugar each day is not going to harm you, it wont make you fatter unless your metabolism is really slow or you consume a lot of sugar, and too much of anything is a bad thing. The same thing goes for fat, a nice fatty steak every now and then can be a good thing, but too much is obviously a bad thing as well.

a reply to: TexasTruth

I agree with your assessment that one can eat rather unhealthy foods and stay in good shape, I don't follow any particular diet, I eat what i want when I want and I'm in good shape physically because of how demanding my job is. Food of any kind is fuel for our bodies, if you are burning that fuel you will stay in good shape if you are adding fuel and not using it The fuel tank can become bloated.

Monsanto!

nuff said.