Well, a lot has been said recently about
how sure we can be( or not ) about
the studies we read. Many reasons for potential bias have been mentioned. For ex. I have oft mentioned how those who protect us from the quacks gave us 30 years of trans-fats and high carb, a quack like action as it turns out. Who knew? We have even had a couple of threads going about
whether a cure for cancer, if found, might be suppressed by some as it would lead to the end of an mega-buck industry.
But here is a study making an outright claim I have not seen in other than the types of newsletters that "mainstream" medicine or government would probably call "quacks", but now it is in JAMA. More food for thought and discussion:
www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/710431/sugar-industry-paid-scientists-blame-heart-disease-fat-not-sugar-report-findsSomebody said...
The sugar CON: Sugar industry 'paid scientists to blame heart disease on fat NOT sugar'
FAT has long been blamed for a range of health woes, but now it has come to light its bad reputation may not be deserved.....................
In a report published by the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, it is claimed the sugar industry funded scientific research that downplayed the risk of heart disease from eating too much sugar.
Instead, dietary fat was vilified as the number one enemy to heart health, scientists said.
Authors of the report delved into archival documents to examine the role of the sugar industry in coronary heart disease research.
The findings point to industry-sponsored research that influenced the scientific debate - naming fat as the culprit in heart disease and throwing doubt onto the hazards of sugar..................
Led by Dr Stanton Glantz, researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, looked at internal documents from the Sugar Research Foundation – now known as the Sugar Association.
They analysed historical reports and other material to create a chronological case study.
The documents included correspondence between the Sugar Research Foundation and a Harvard University professor of nutrition who was co-director of the foundation’s first coronary heart disease research programme in the 1960s.
The foundation launched its coronary heart disease research in 1965..........................
The first project was a review published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967.
The review focused on fat and cholesterol as the dietary cause of coronary heart disease, while downplayed sugar consumption as a risk factor.
The Sugar Research Foundation set the review’s objective, contributed articles to be included and received drafts of the study.
But, the foundation’s funding of the project and role were not disclosed, according to today’s report.....................
Dr Glantz and colleagues noted: “This historical account of industry efforts demonstrates the importance of having reviews written by people without conflicts of interest and the need for financial disclosure.”
The authors did point out the New England Journal of Medicine does require authors to disclose all conflicts of interest, but adds those rules were introduced in 1984.
Dr Glantz’s team also noted there is no direct evidence that the sugar industry wrote or changed the manuscript that was published in the NEJM, and evidence that the industry shaped its conclusions is circumstantial, they acknowledged...................."
Though the headline says "paid scientists to blame heart disease on fat NOT sugar", I'm not sure they have strong proof of that, though there is certainly some reason to suspect it. But if this is correct, is this where - along with trans-fat recommendations- it all started, the dietary recommendations that have been associated with a massive increase in diabetes and obesity? The start of what would become standard government and medical industry recommendations?
Whether it was or wasn't the start, I wonder how many early deaths have resulted from the changes that came from this type of research? Did anyone besides me, back in the 80s, used to cut fat like a maniac while also buying low fat, cookies and other deserts? But still, what fat there was being trans-fat? Guilty.