In the westernised / industrialised world, there has been much lies, misinformation and deliberate confusion given to what types of fats and oils we should be getting in our diet. In fact, I will go so far as to say this. That one of the biggest causes of the illness epidemics; heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes, organ dysfunction, mental diseases... we've had over the last eighty years or so, have to be down to the poor fats and oils eaten.
- This, with a lack of quality fats and oils in the diet.
Now consider yourself to be judge and jury. Allow me to put forward my case. I accuse the food establishment (and those it is undoubtedly in cahoots with) of: Lies, deception, misinformation, cover-ups, shoddy science and confusion, in order to profiteer. They have managed to convince the consumers over the years that their food products containing all the newfangled junk fats and oils are healthy. But, truth is known; through commercial greed they have caused more harm than good.
... And this is how it has been achieved.
Let's turn the clock back to around the 1920's. This was a time when illnesses such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes and other epidemic disorders were quite rare in the westernised / industrialised world. So it may well beg the question: What has happened for there to be such an appalling rise in these disorders over the last 90-odd years? How have they got to epidemic levels? Why, for example, has heart disease today become the cause of over 40% of deaths in the USA?
During the early years, before any significant rises in the epidemics, basically 2 major things happened that allowed the health of many, many individuals to suffer as a consequence. The suffering continued to escalate in numbers over the years and carries on to this day...
With regards to these 2 things (2 factors), one effectively promoted the other. Thus, allowing both progressing and gaining acceptance with its ill-informed consumers. This is why I firmly believe that it was not a coincidence that these things occurred together. Both had been orchestrated to happen this way. They were put in place at the right time... More on this later.
- These two things were:
Consumers were told that through 'scientific evidence' it was found that low saturated fat and low cholesterol in the diet would reduce heart disease.
More and more foods over the years were manufactured containing more unsaturated fat and less saturated fat was consumed. A low fat diet was also considered to be the so-called safer alternative.
- Both of course, are still accepted in the mainstream today.
Let's look at factor number 1. Is it true? Has a low-sat fat and low cholesterol diet really contributed to less heart disease? What about the so-called incontrovertible scientific proof that it has?
- Let's examine the evidence.
A part of my upbringing, I've been led to believe that any major finding should be supported by major evidence. In the case of the low-sat fat diet and low cholesterol leading to less heart disease, the evidence for this, to say the least, is not that convincing, which may come as a surprise to many.
Was this the start of genocidal misinformation?
As far back as 1948, a study began. It looked into the relationship between saturated fat and cholesterol intake in roughly 6,000 humans over 5-year intervals. This was called the Framingham study (conducted in Framingham, Massachusetts, USA). On inspection of the results, comparing the 2 groups:
One group with a high sat-fat / high cholesterol diet and
The other group with a low sat-fat / low cholesterol diet
Doctor William Cannel, the Framingham study's director stated in so many words that,
'Total plasma cholesterol is a powerful predictor of death related to CHD... '
However, some 40 years later, on closer inspection we find that the above statement was not consistent with the real findings. Without fanfare, revealed in some little-known journal, an admission by Dr William Castelli, the study's successive director sheds some light on the truth of the matter. Basically he said:
'In Framingham, Massachusetts, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person's cholesterol... we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories, weighed the least and were the most physically active'
The study did show that those who weighed more and had abnormally high blood cholesterol levels were slightly more at risk for future heart disease: but weight gain and blood cholesterol levels had an inverse correlation with fat and cholesterol intake in the diet'
- In other words, the Framingham study did not show that a low sat-fat and low cholesterol diet reduced the risk of heart disease. Many other studies have also led to the same conclusion.
Other findings such as that from heart surgeon Michael DeBakey squarely contradict the idea that high cholesterol = heart disease. Having looked into 17,000 patients, he found no relationship between cholesterol and cardiovascular problems...
A nutrition journal revealed a study from a medical research council showing that men eating butter (sat-fat) were 50% less likely to get heart disease than those on margarine (poly unsaturated fat)
Inhabitants of northern India are known to eat 17 times more saturated fat than southern Indians. However, the incidence of coronary heart disease is 7 times less in northern India...
However, in spite of these studies, like many others showing a lack of evidence for the lower sat-fat and lower cholesterol diet as the healthy option, they have been ignored.
