I worked in marketing. It's not all bad, because it also raised money for good causes. Their money buys undue influence, and I'm sure we have existing laws about it. We now know the money buys lax law enforcement for laws we already have.

Like the ones passed about marketing directly to children with lies.

It's a catch-22. We are only supposed to let scientists do science, but while the truth is out there, there are few devoted to knowing what it is and where to look for it. But without all the people banding together, we wouldn't have the situation today, which started with the reissue of DANDR. Without that push, and the opportunity for people to try it, find each other, and help the scientists who cared work on it, and work it out.

It's a relentless slow pushback against fools and liars but we have, at least in the US where it is so rampant, tools that we can revive. I'm seeing a message of "nutrition density" that is sometimes actually viewed correctly.

Strangely enough, I'm finding carnivore getting that message out, and the obnoxious vegans are pushing it, which amuses me no end. People are desperate for something that they can cram into their overstressed lives and hearing they must forego convenience is a tough sell until someone develops a health condition. (Then, we have the time but not the energy. )

If we have crumbling institutions like Harvard there's still plenty of research to undermine the ultraprocessed food message, which is still CICO. Because a calorie of sugar is the same as a calorie of meat.

Of course it makes no sense. But it's a great excuse to give people to say to themselves. Did Big Sugar pay ANY price for the disaster that is the American medical situation?

Maybe diabetics should go after THEM and their big pockets. Law circles saying "It's the next tobacco."

If that's how it gets done, and in the US it IS how, much of the time, I think that's the law working as it should.

Part of it is that they start with hypothesis based on what prior scientific research has already accepted as truth.

(Never mind that the research might have been flawed or manipulated - for instance Seven Countries cherry picked from more than twenty countries)

If you start with a completely new hypothesis that is counter to the accepted "truth", you're going to have a great deal of trouble getting funding to conduct a proper study.



An extreme example of going against what was accepted truth would be Dr Semmelweis - he's the one who came up with the "crazy" idea that childbed fever was the fault of doctors not washing their hands (after performing autopsies in the morgue):


(Quote from a synopsis paragraph on the NIH website)

He went completely against the accepted truth of the time, was routinely denounced for it, and his theory was not accepted during his lifetime. Remember that at the time, bloodletting to cure disease by "balancing humors" was still considered to be a valid medical treatment for most ills.

He theorized this primarily by observing the statistics of the death rate at 2 different maternity hospitals, and showed his theory to be valid by a full year of insisting that doctors at the higher death rate hospital wash their hands. But it went completely against all accepted medical knowledge of the day - Doctors are healers! They can't possibly be responsible for causing disease!



If there was that much push back on something clearly shown to be the direct cause of so much childbed fever, how much more difficult is it going to be to prove dietary theories that go against currently accepted and routinely promoted dietary truth?

Especially since as has been pointed out many times on here, what works for one doesn't necessarily work for another - and also consider that the results (other than weight gain/loss, diabetes development/remission, etc) are not able to be established in a relatively short amount of time, but will ultimately only be shown over a lifetime. I've often seen claims that "sure you'll lose weight on LC/Keto and you may even get your diabetes to go into remission, but you'll keel over of a heart attack before your time because of all that cholesterol!"

It's an uphill battle, that's for sure.

Even worse than that, it started as, "How dare you accuse GENTLEMEN of having dirty hands!" Even though they went from the morgue to the labor rooms.

In the early days The Johns Hopkins University hospital was spread across several buildings, so the gentlemen doctors had to walk outside and up and down stairs to see patients in other wards. That extra ~5 minutes was probably enough to dehydrate/deactivate the germs on their unwashed hands and lessen the spread of disease to the next patient; it became a model for hospital design in the 1800s. Doc also got some sunshine and made Vitamin D walking between buildings and on smoke breaks, fortifying his own immune system to fight disease.

Another study found that the filthiest thing in most hospital rooms was the doctor's tie, because it was never washed, yet breathed on, coughed on and spilled on multiple times a day while surfaces were regularly disinfected and other fabrics bleached.

It was similar thinking behind early 20th century architecture adding air shafts to the building designs. By this time, germ theory had been overwhelmingly useful.

Men also shaved off facial hair and young people in general went for shorter styles and increased the use of pomade. The idea was to show a sleek, hygienic, appearance.