Bought and Paid for "Studies" Made You Think Fat was Bad for You (and Sugar OK)

Remember, if you ever question a so-called "scientific consensus" then you are a science denier. Presumably this should include politically incorrect scientific consensuses such as that men and women are different, but such consensuses rarely gets brought up for some inexplicable reason.

Regardless, in completely unrelated news...

In the 1960s, the sugar industry funded research that downplayed the risks of sugar and highlighted the hazards of fat, according to a newly published article in JAMA Internal Medicine.
​
The article draws on internal documents to show that an industry group called the Sugar Research Foundation wanted to 'refute' concerns about sugar's possible role in heart disease. The SRF then sponsored research by Harvard scientists that did just that. The result was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, with no disclosure of the sugar industry funding.

The sugar-funded project in question was a literature review, examining a variety of studies and experiments. It suggested there were major problems with all the studies that implicated sugar, and concluded that cutting fat out of American diets was the best way to address coronary heart disease.
​
The authors of the new article say that for the past five decades, the sugar industry has been attempting to influence the scientific debate over the relative risks of sugar and fat.

My positive experience with the Paleo diet (and science!) certainly makes me believe this. And this from NPR, which is like the most mainstream of all mainstream sources.

But the drumbeat of muh science denier is quite tiring. Regardless of whether this is with regards to global warming, GMO or whatever. It simplifies the issue to a black and white affair and leaves no room for nuanced positions like Bjorn Lomborg (whom I mostly agree with). 

It also ignores that science can be misused, financially or politically influenced (like say with the Sacklers and Lysenkoism respectively) and also, that science relies on heterodox positions to push it forward. We are in the middle of major replication crises in psychology and pharmacology. Yes, there are those who stupidly deny basic scientific principles or scientific consensuses on flimsy grounds. That by no means implies we should just accept the current consensus on various topics without further scrutiny.
 
Oh, and stay away from sugar as much as possible. It's really bad from you.