Well, well, well. Scientists. They're, like, super unbiased. They only care about truth. They're the most accurate people on planet Earth. Especially when it comes to science things, like global climate cooling changes of the hot hots. Or in this case, dietary choices. Scientists, since they only care about "truth," cannot be purchased. Unless, of course, they have a sweet tooth? Because guess what? All you grocery shoppers who love the low fat and non-fat foods? Joke's on you. Sorry, it shouldn't be. The joke should be on the scientists who only care about truth. But looks like some "facts" got a bit slippery. Turns out Big Sugar pushed Harvard to push the myth that fatty foods cause heart disease. Turns out... no. Can you believe you've been eating "Can't Believe it's not Butter" instead of the good stuff? Yikes.

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.

At the time, in the 1960s, conflict of interest disclosure was not required.

It meant sugar chiefs could work closely with researchers to re-draft and re-draft their paper until it was 'satisfactory' - without having to report their involvement. 

The result shaped public health approaches to nutrition for years.

I'm going to tell you what this means right now: scientists are not unbiased. Scientists, especially scientists being funded by an INTEREST GROUP (sorry for the screaming), usually have a pre-ordained outcome to their experiment. In this case, trying to blame your heart disease on butter, bacon, and all the deliciously fat things you may have avoided. Because you may have believed "fat is bad." When no. It isn't. Sugar, though? Well that's pretty bad as it turns out.

Big Sugar is a big business...

But see, "Big Sugar" is an industry just as much as "Big Tobacco" or "Big Oil." I want to make it clear, here, I'm not opposed to industries being big. We shouldn't be surprised a company selling sugar would want the public to believe sugar isn't the problem. The story here is that scientists helped push the lie that fat was the sole culprit, and sugar had nothing to do with anything. Pass me another soda, okay?

But wait, it gets worse. Who wants cookies?

[The report] pointed to fat and cholesterol as the dietary culprits of heart disease, glossing over evidence from the 1950s that sugar was also linked to heart disease.

In the new report, Laura A. Schmidt of the University of California, San Francisco and colleagues have uncovered correspondence that shows how Dr Hegsted was commissioned by the SRF to reach a specific conclusion.

In 1954, they say, foundation president Henry Haas gave a speech highlighting the potential of reducing American fat intake and recapturing those calories as carbohydrates that would increase the per capita consumption of sugar more than a third.

Which was the goal. More carbs, more sugar, more money for companies that produce foods high in carbs and sugar. We got that? Cool. Remember, "scientists," here.

In 1962, an American Medical Association nutrition report indicated that low-fat high-sugar diets may actually encourage the development of cholesterol.

Two years later, according to the new report, SRF vice president John Hickson proposed that the SRF embark on a major program to counter 'negative attitudes toward sugar.'

Pass the butter...

So researches, scientists, whatever you want to call them, had a mission: fat bad, sugar...not bad. It's okay if you eat sugar. But fat is super, super bad. Avoid butter, bacon, fatty meats. Blah, blah, blah. Turns out, not so much. Go read the full report after you're done here. Just don't go on believing your non-fat yogurt is super healthy for you. Might want to consider doing a bit of research on dietary health on your own. Always consider the funding source.

All I can say is, I eat bacon and fried eggs for breakfast. No sugar cereals with "low fat" content for me. Pass the butter.

The idea that scientists are somehow "unbiased" or "can't be bought" is crap. They're flawed human beings, just like everyone else. If you believe scientists just because they're scientists, no. Stop it. If you think a group of scientists given millions of dollars to conclude humans are warming the earth would be unbiased, no. Stop it. Read 300 Scientists Blast NOAA for Fudging 'Climate Change' Data...

There's an oft-cited expression: follow the money. In this case, money came from Big Sugar. They had a product in need of selling (in just about everything), so the public had to believe sugar was no biggie. The public, trusting that scientists loved truth and "science" bought into it. Hook, line, donuts. Except turns out? Not at all true.

We can apply the same methodology to the scientists pushing global warming. They're being funded. Funded by entities which have much to gain from additional regulations from government.

Be wary of your "science." Don't be so wary of butter.

NOT SUBSCRIBED TO THE PODCAST? FIX THAT! IT’S COMPLETELY FREE ON BOTH ITUNES HERE AND SOUNDCLOUD HERE.