40 Years Ago There Was An “Overwhelming Consensus”…Now We’re Finding Out It Was Completely Wrong!

Short on time today…so just a short, somewhat off-topic story.


High-carb, low fat diet puts the pounds on and makes you sick. This “registered dietician” claims carbohydrates are the way to go! Unfortunately she has been woefully misinformed and the high-carb diet she is peddling isn’t even working for her. Photo cropped from FOX 32.

Even Time Magazine is coming around!

Bryan Walsh writes at leftie-veggie Time Magazine here is waking up to one of the greatest myths ever perpetuated onto mankind. No, I’m not talking about global warming from carbon (that’s the second biggest). I’m talking about the myth that heart disease is caused by fats from meat, eggs, butter, etc.

Walsh at Time writes:

Ending the War on Fat

For decades, it has been the most vilified nutrient in the American diet. But new science reveals fat isn’t what’s hurting our health.

[…] We were only doing what we were told. In 1977, the year before I was born, a Senate committee led by George McGovern published its landmark ‘Dietary Goals for the United States,’ urging Americans to eat less high-fat red meat, eggs and dairy and replace them with more calories from fruits, vegetables and especially carbohydrates.

By 1980 that wisdom was codified. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued its first dietary guidelines, and one of the primary directives was to avoid cholesterol and fat of all…”

Continue reading

The progressive, enlightened George McGovern – a Democrat.

And the rest is history. Today we are finding out it was all driven by junk science from greedy Big Food, and pharmaceutical companies who, as of today, have raked in hundreds of billions in revenues from medications for treating “high cholesterol”, diabetes, high blood pressure, cardiac diseases and many many others. They did this by promoting a diet that made us very sick. There are documents that prove they intentionally deceived the public. I wonder if they will ever be brought to justice for the health mayhem the inflicted onto the public.

I suspect that in about 30 or 40 years from now people will also wake up to the “consensus” driven myth of CO2 causing global warming, climate change and extreme weather. You could substitute the word “fat” in the above text with “CO2”, etc. and get a pretty accurate story.

Just as the junk science vilifying fat caused mayhem in human health, the junk science vilifying CO2 will cause mayhem with our economic health.

For me it is already clear. I switched to a high-fat, low-carb diet and lost 20 lbs over the last three months or so. I have more energy, no longer put up with cravings every 2 hours, and I’m off the blood pressure medicine.

Of course I’m still eating a good share of vegetables.


20 responses to “40 Years Ago There Was An “Overwhelming Consensus”…Now We’re Finding Out It Was Completely Wrong!”

  1. Onlooker

    Spot on. The parallels between these two issues are very close. Underlying both is a leftist ideology which took precedence over the facts and then employed government power to entrench it through policy and funding.

    Wake up people!

  2. Loodt Pretorius

    I just hope the UK butchers stop trimming off the fat from steaks as a matter of course.

  3. NoFreeWind

    I lost 40 lbs 2 yrs ago with a low carb, “no worry about fat” diet, and have kept to the principles. The weight has stayed off!

  4. sunsettommy

    After I increased my fat intake and reduce the carbohydrates,I have lost 54 pounds.

  5. yonason

    “…the high-carb diet she is peddling isn’t even working for her.”

    I had to laugh when I read that, because that’s the first thing that came to mind when I saw her picture, even before I read your comment.

    It’s a scientific disgrace that no accessible clear-cut wisdom exists on healthy eating and exercise. As a result, people who want to be healthier follow every charlatan that comes down the pike, sometimes not even willingly like when they are forced to eat what’s served by the lunch lady from hell.

    1. DirkH

      Just before the mid term elections.

  6. Unilever margarine op het hoofd, het spel is nu echt uit! - Climategate.nl

    […] geleden ontdekte en die in die korte tijd zelf al 10kg afviel, noemt de klimaathoax tegenwoordig op notrickzone,com de op één na grootste wetenschappelijke dwaling ooit. Want de tientallen miljoenen doden die de pseudowetenschap van de milieubeweging opeist met verzet […]

  7. Charles Battig, M. D.

    This is all old news. Dr. Barry Sears was on topic in 1994 with his first book “The Zone” in which he gave the biological and physiological basis for carbohydrate negative dietary impacts on health. He introduced the concept of the glycemic index, insulin resistance, and his 40% carb, 30% protein, 30% fat balanced dietary plan…the ZONE.

  8. zi xiu tang bee pollen

    40 Years Ago There Was An “Overwhelming Consensus”…Now We’re Finding Out It Was Completely Wrong!

  9. DirkH

    Survey: Germans think their media are corrupt. On a scale from 1 (not corrupt) to 5 (completely corrupt) media get a 3.6

    But there’s hope for the warmists: Germans are still gullible enough to give NGO’s only a 2.7 .

    Politicians end up with 3.4 and are now more trustworthy than media!

  10. harleyrider1978

    You forgot the other great MYTH that of SECOND HAND SMOKE

    Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition


    This sorta says it all

    These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

    So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ”SAFE LEVELS”


    All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

    For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

    “For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

    “Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

    Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

    “For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes.

    For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

    The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

    So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

    Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA.

    Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!

  11. harleyrider1978

    7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
    November 2004.


    “5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”

    In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

    The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

  12. harleyrider1978

    The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) could not even produce evidence that passive smoke is significantly harmful inside, this is what they wrote prior to the smoking ban in article 9 OC255/15 9 “The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act”. The reason the ban was brought in under the Health Act 2006, and not by the HSE, because no proof of harm was needed with the Health Act 2006, and the HSE have to have proof, seems the DM has lost rational thought about anything smoke related.

  13. harleyrider1978

    This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:


    Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

    By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

    Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

    What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

    “I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study………………………

    Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

    The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

    Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.


    A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

    Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

    1. DirkH

      “Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.”

      Well that would be a lot like my lung; and I like my lung way better than no lung at all. (Stopped smoking 10 years ago.)

  14. harleyrider1978

    If you’re afraid of second-hand smoke, you should also avoid cars, restaurants…and don’t even think of barbecuing.

    here are just some of the chemicals present in tobacco smoke and what else contains them:

    Arsenic, Benzine, Formaldehyde.

    Arsenic- 8 glasses of water = 200 cigarettes worth of arsenic

    Benzine- Grilling of one burger = 250 cigarettes

    Formaldehyde – cooking a vegetarian meal = 100 cigarettes

    When you drink your 8 glasses of tap water (64 ounces) a day, you’re safely drinking up to 18,000 ng of arsenic by government safety standards of 10 nanograms/gram (10 ng/gm = 18,000ng/64oz) for daily consumption.

    Am I “poisoning” you with the arsenic from my cigarette smoke? Actually, with the average cigarette putting out 32 ng of arsenic into the air which is then diluted by normal room ventilation for an individual exposure of .032 ng/hour, you would have to hang out in a smoky bar for literally 660,000 hours every day (yeah, a bit hard, right?) to get the same dose of arsenic that the government tells you is safe to drink.

    So you can see why claims that smokers are “poisoning” people are simply silly.

    You can stay at home all day long if you don’t want all those “deadly” chemicals around you, but in fact, those alleged 4000-7000 theorized chemicals in cigarettes are present in many foods, paints etc. in much larger quantities. And as they are present in cigarettes in very small doses, they are harmless. Sorry, no matter how much you like the notion of harmful ETS, it’s a myth.

  15. harleyrider1978

    Even with direct smoking claims they have no end point proof of that either!

    Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!

    It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):


    (2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and
    Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in
    2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
    ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite
    long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
    said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
    cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
    (2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
    arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
    to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
    therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
    lung cancer.

    [9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
    Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
    use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
    causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
    cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,
    it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an
    individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
    (paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).
    [9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
    point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence
    case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
    consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
    knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
    individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
    intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
    life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to

  16. harleyrider1978

    The “black lung” myth is just one of the inflammatory myths by the “society-fixer” fanatics/zealots/extremists. Another that was highlighted a few threads ago is the “Chapman Trick”, aggressively attempting to convince particularly nonsmokers that they are being “poisoned” by smokers, exposed to vaporized ant poison, toilet cleaner, rocket fuel, car battery fluid, anti-freeze, etc. through SHS.

    What other than dangerously disturbed minds would want to fraudulently convince a larger group that a minority group is recklessly “poisoning” them?

    If we consider the Godber Blueprint, through the 80s, the fanatics dispensed with claims remotely tied to facts. They promoted using highly inflammatory terms such as “poison”, “toxic”, “kill”, “death” that went far beyond the implications of statistical information. The fanatics played very much to the media; they advocated slogans, not for their truthfulness but for their attention-grabbing potential, i.e., propaganda It’s a constant play on fear and hatred in fostering aversion/revulsion to the “undesirable” behavior (e.g., smoking). There it is plainly in the Chapman Trick – “Look for usages that will connote revulsion or concern”. The goal of inflammatory propaganda is to coerce/terrify/terrorize targeted groups into [social engineered] conformity.

    And we also know that the adoption of the fanatics’ perverse fantasy world is financially lucrative for government through extortionate taxes. The fanatics themselves also demand a cut of those taxes to further “educate” the public and keep these disturbed minds in comfortable emplyment; and Gigantic Pharma fuels the derangement in “cultivating a market” for its useless “cessation wares”. There are quite a number of groups financially profiting from this fraud. In other industries it would be referred to as racketeering.

    The fanatics indeed need to be outed for their major, much repeated, inflammatory lies. The questions also need to be asked as to what sort of mentality would justify seriously messing with people’s minds in order to impose their baseless preferences, and what sort of mentality would accept this derangement as ‘wise counsel”? There is more than ample evidence from the last few hundred years that the rabid antismoking mentality is a serious mental disorder. It’s a masquerade for deep-seated conflict. It represents a cluster of dysfunction not limited to acute fixation (monomania), Narcissism (self-absorbed), obsession with control (megalomania), histrionics, rage, and a “god complex” – delusions of grandeur, infallibility, and benevolence. These dysfunctions avoid correction – are held together – through pathological lying. It should be obvious that propagandists have absolutely no regard for mental health; the manipulation of belief (promoting mental dysfunction) is simply a means to a questionable end.

    C/O Magnetic

  17. harleyrider1978


    Court overturns Bullitt smoking ban

    Three years into court proceedings, the Kentucky Supreme Court has issued a final ruling that overturns a smoking ban approved by the Bullitt County Board of Health.

    The board exceeded its authority, the court said, so the ban is invalid.

    Opponents and supporters of the smoking ban — which prohibited smoking in all workplaces, including bars and restaurants — argued their cases before the Kentucky Supreme Court in April. The hearing followed mixed rulings from Bullitt Circuit Court and the state Court of Appeals.

    The county board of health approved the ban in 2011. Board members argued that preventing health risks caused by secondhand smoke falls under its jurisdiction, as provided in a state law that allows it to adopt regulations “necessary to protect the health of the people.”

    However, Bullitt Fiscal Court and the eight cities within the county claimed in a lawsuit that Fiscal Court is the only legislative agency that can enact a countywide smoking ban.

    They asked Bullitt Circuit Court to prevent the board of health from implementing the ban. Bullitt Circuit Judge Rodney Burress agreed that the board did not have that authority and stopped the ban from taking effect.

    The state Court of Appeals later overturned Burress’ ruling, saying the board has the right to impose regulations involving public health, including a smoking ban.

    The decision from the Kentucky Supreme Court reverses the Court of Appeal’s ruling and reinstates Bullitt Circuit Court’s judgment, according to court documents.


By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy