Idiotic Nutrition Science

Majid Ali, M.D.

 The New York Times Is Wrong on Nutrition Science, Again,

Outdated Science,  42%.

The above words were the first words in an op-ed piece in the New York Times of July 9, 2015. The title of the op-ed piece was “Nutrition Facts Facts.” No, I did not change any word in the Times’ article. But it doesn’t make any sense, you protest. Neither do they make any sense for me. I suspect that these words made no sense for other readers of Times. But this choice of words is not my concern. I offer this article for altogether reason.

Outdated Science

Science is never outdated. The New York Times should know that. A valid scientific observation once made stands on it regardless of what precedes it or follows it.

What it called “outdated science” was never science. When it told its readers for decades that eggs were bad and so was cheese, and meat, it should have told them that it is paassing on the opinions of doctors who never try to reverse any disease with nutritional therapies. They only regurgitate what their corporate pay masters tell them to do.

The scientific facts were always the same, as they are now. Specifically,

1. Healthy fats and proteins do not cause insulin toxicity, nor diabetes or heart disease.

2. Insulin toxicity that leads to the metabolic syndrome comes from starches and sugars (including fruit sugar (fructose).

3. Chemicalized foods are the major culprits.

4. Neglected food and mold allergy, and food additives alter the bowel flora that result in obesity, insulin toxicity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disorders.

Problems Identified by the Times

Consider the table below reproduced from the top of the Times article:

Outdated Science                          42%

Corporate Influence                       21%

Political pandering                         8%

Committes                                     6%

Cheap Carbohydrates                     4%

We’re Working On It                     17%

Corporate influences, 21%! Times again couldn’t be farther from the truth.

Two Suggestions for The New York Times

First, please disclose the background of your “nutrition scientists” in your future food nutrition articles. Specifically, how many times have they tried to reverse chronic diseases with nutritional plans?

Second, what percentage of their incomes comes the practice of nutritional medicine.

It would be a great service to Times’ readership if If the Times were to provide this information (which it never has in the past).

Another Suggestion:

For readers interested in more information on the subject, I suggest my book “Integrative Nutritional Medicine,” the 5th Volume of my 14-volume The Principles and Practice of Integrative Medicine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s