As the COVID pandemic experience is teaching us, there is something deeply wrong with medicine in America — if we did not know already. But we are ill, as Paul Jacob indicated on September 5, “Stay Puft America,” for other reasons, too. Like food.
There are now many resources online, however, that may help us understand just how far off the mark our doctors and nutritionists have become. Comedian Jimmy Dore recently explained, to the best of his abilities, a case against using statins. The problem is not cholesterol, he says, but sugar.
The danger of sugar, and not just refined sugar and high fructose corn syrup, has been warned against for ages. A famous book in the 1970s made a big hit, but the Big Gov/Big Agribiz complex fought back with the Low Fat story, and we have been arguing about this ever since.
None of this can possibly be adjudicated on this site. What is true? What should you eat? What should and shouldn’t you do to prevent strokes and heart attacks and diabetes? These are questions to answer somewhere else than on ThisIsCommonSense.org.
But still, it may be worth listening to the latest guest on The Diary of a CEO podcast, Jessie Inchauspé:
What is wrong with our diets and our doctors? Increasing numbers of scientists and doctors have joined a legion of food faddists to blame sugar. But is it really a molecule that is to blame? Or is it … government? Could it be that the Big Gov/Big Biz paradigm has poisoned us? Is poisoning us?
It sure looks like this malign entity has worked mightily to make billions off the bad habits that regulators, subsidizers, and lobbyists have — behind the scenes of advertising and product placement — enticed us into.
1 reply on “Sugar Sugar”
The underlying issue is that having the state assume any function incentivizes capture of the state by those who can profit from the function being performed one way as opposed to another.
Having the state provide guidance incentives capture of the state by those who can profit from state provision of guidance of one sort as opposed to another.
Having the state deliver medical treatment incentives capture of the state by those who can profit from state provision of medical treatment of one sort as opposed to another.
Proponents of state provision will, of course, complain that private provision of guidance and of medical treatment is likewise subject to capture; and indeed it is. But private provision is contestable. If a private provider sells-out, that provider can be displaced. And one hardly imagines UL or Good Housekeeping engaged in secret agreements to suppress dissent.