artificial butter flavour linked to alzheimers, page-6

Hi, Skint,TU from me.

I wasn't intending a gratuitous bagging of scientists here(nor am I a hero worshipper)but am simply observing that I have seen many many contradictory pronouncements over the last 30 or so years. Sure, knowledge has improved it may be argued, but each pronouncement is certain that this one is the final word on the matter(till the next one rolls around).

I am not casting aspersions at scientists personally but it seems that the science industry(like any other) has certain unwritten rules,one of which is publish or perish, amongst many others.That forces scientists to be "productive" but really, how much of it is a waste of time that will be forgotten as soon as published? If there are 500 studies on one topic, will another 500 make any difference? If the first lot were designed properly there shouldn't be any need for another 500.Is this simply "grant engineering" in order to keep themselves employed? Another rule may be that a threat ie. food, chemical, pharmaceutical etc is worth 1000 times what a non threat is. No one wants to pay to be told that everything is fine unless for commercial reasons eg. declaring GM foods safe or that there is no risk in mobile phone use.

Sure, there is some truly great work that is done and I sincerely applaud that but it seems to me that there is also a lot of politics and groupthink also. Perhaps that is inevitable as it is human nature. It does seem to be more prevalent in certain areas of science that have direct contact with the public, and unfortunately scientists sometimes end up as salesmen.

I agree that the media is in many ways useless in reporting science, but they are also fed media releases and are used themselves for PR purposes. Applying pressure to government for money, keeping a program going, etc.

"I never stopped eating eggs. Some things are just obviously BS."

Nor did I, but I just used that as an example. If one buys into the whole official public propaganda biz then there were good reasons not to eat them, or at least be wary of them because of their cholesterol content.Is the cholesterol story true or a beat up? Who knows? I see it more as a marketing exercise by food manufacturers. Some say that Ansel Keyes, the originator of the cholesterol scare was a scammer and doctored the data to fit. Some say no. Who is right?

A question that I would like answered and encapsulates certain above issues is, What is the optimum human diet? I mean definitively, proven scientifically, beyond any doubt or debate. Is there one? If not then why not, given the billions of dollars and millions of manhours spent studying the subject over the past 50 years?


cheers