Anti-nutritional medical manipulations and shenanigans

In the early years of nutrition discoveries, Dr. Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, Ph.D. conducted a study lauded in the annals of history and for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1937.

Szent-Gyorgyi took guinea pigs with scurvy and provided one group with lemon juice. Lemon juice had been established to successfully treat scurvy. Another group was provided a pharmaceutically synthesized version of a substance known to exist in lemon juice. However, he gave only half the amount of lemon juice known to treat scurvy to the one group while giving more than twice the amount of the pharmaceutically synthesized substance. This resulted in the group receiving lemon juice to not have results. The group receiving the much greater amount of the phake version showed significant results thereby making it appear that the man-made substance was superior to that which was naturally occurring. On this basis the artiphicial “nutrient” — actually a counterfeit nutrient that would more accurately be called a drug — was declared the antiscorbutic substance. As it was an acid it was therefore dubbed ascorbic from the Greek prefix ‘a’ as in ‘without’ or ‘apart from’ ‘scorbic’ as in scurvy with the declaration then made that this was the anti-scurvy vitamin called ‘vitamin C’.

However, this so-called ‘vitamin C’ was later found to not always eliminate scurvy in numerous other studies but the die was cast and Big Pharma has made hordes of money off of this phraudulent research while people in nutrition think this substance to be something which it is not — and consequently to miss ill effects from use of this so-called ‘vitamin C’ that are in fact multitudinous from high dose, long term use of this artificial substance. This is a very l-o-o-o-o-n-g story with great detail for another time.

Sometimes when referring to ‘vitamin C’ I say “the ‘C’ stands for CON”.

This was brought freshly to my mind by a recent study on Omega-3 fatty acids ballyhooed much by all the mainstream press.

The first “news” story appeared with a bold-face headline ‘More omega-3 fats didn’t aid heart patients’ from Associated Propogandaess (AP) — the world’s largest “news” agency that is based in the United States.

The lack of any benefit to heart patients from Omega-3 fats is contrary to all that I have seen in numerous studies.

Perhaps the ‘More omega-3 fats’ reference was the key? Could high amounts of omega-3 fatty acids cause a countering of normal benefits from moderate amounts?

“Eating more heart-healthy omega-3 fats provided no additional benefit in a study of heart attack survivors” the story began that appeared to affirm the possibility of “more” perhaps not being better.

A little further into the article it noted that the omega-3 fatty acids were delivered by way of margarine.

OK, something is fishy in the state of Denmark with that disclosure — or at least amongst the Dutch researchers conducting this research — and fishy is figuratively speaking because literal fish would be the normal delivery system for omega-3 fatty acids and therefore not suspect.

Margarine is a long-time con alleged for decades to be heart healthy while in fact being an artificial creation referred to in more recent years as trans-fats that are now widely accepted as heart risk factors.

Delivering omega-3 fatty acids previously demonstrated to be beneficial to the heart in margarine trans-fats known to be a risk factor for heart disease could certainly explain a lack of healthful heart benefits.

Even further into the article a nutrition professor from a renowned university said, “adding a little bit of omega-3 fatty acid does not seem to make a difference,” with reference to the Dutch study.

“More” and “more” in the headline and then opening of the article giving way deeper down in the article to “a little bit” in reference to omega-3 fatty acid usage is definitely suspect.

The very lengthy AP article never addressed how much omega-3 fatty acids were actually utilized.

Hmmm …

The article emphasized that researchers reported participants were “already getting good care” and “taking the best medicines” and therefore postulated that good drugs trumped nutrition.

The second story appeared a little more than 2 hours later with a bold-face headline ‘Omega-3 margarines fail to help in heart study’ from Reuters — the world’s second largest “news” agency that is based in Great Britain.

At least this story was up front about the margarine delivery system (although not even hinting at the weaknesses inherent therein) and also did not give the allusion (or illusion) that plentiful amounts of omega-3 fatty acids were involved in the study.

However, the Reuters piece even earlier in the article and more strongly emphasized the drugs trumping nutrition postulate.

Near the end of the article was a bit of new data. The amount of omega-3 fatty acids in the study was less than 1/2 (one-half) a gram daily.

Every one of the multitude of studies on omega-3 fatty acids showing heart benefits are with a minimum of 1 gram daily. Therefore the researchers used less than half the amount known to benefit heart problems.

It is of note that this is such a small amount of fatty acid that food manufacturers are legally allowed to boldly list on their labels that a product contains no trans fatty acids when containing this amount of trans fatty acids per serving.

The third story appeared just a few hours later with a bold-face headline ‘Low-Dose Omega-3 Fatty Acids Don’t Protect Heart Patients’ from HealthDay — a prominent medically oriented news service based in the United States.

At least this later story finally emphasized that it was low dosage use involved in the study.

However, the HealthDay piece also even more strongly emphasized the drugs trumping nutrition postulate noting “the overwhelming power” of blood pressure, cholesterol, and clotting drugs.

Another new piece of data from HealthDay was the researchers titling this as “the Alpha Omega Trial” giving an allusive appearance of divine, Scriptural, or first and last word on the subject authority.

Again, it was far down into this story before revealing that it was less than 1/2 (one-half) a gram daily of omega-3 fatty acids utilized in the study.

Furthermore, these stories appeared beginning at 2:00 in the morning and just after 4:00 in the morning — and in the middle of the weekend as well. The only “breaking news stories” appearing in the middle of the night and during weekends are high profile stories like assassinations and bombings or natural disasters as I know from my own personal experience in journalism for decades. So these were pre-prepared stories under the guise of “breaking news stories”.

This use in medically conducted nutrition studies of significantly lesser amounts than those known to be useful is an all too common ploy of medical researchers dating back more than half a century. Recent examples include use of lesser amounts and different, weaker forms of the trace mineral nutrient selenium than those found to have profound benefits against cancer, and lesser amounts and different, weaker forms of the herb echinacea than those found to have significant results against viral illnesses such as colds and flus.

A Time Magazine writer piled on to the deceptive reporting against omega-3 fatty acids as of no value and also emphasizing superiority of drugs with an added wrinkle of referring to “unadulterated margarine” which is an oxymoron. Margarine is by definition vegetable oils of varying amounts of unsaturation manipulated by forceful manmade practices to be saturated with hydrogen so that margarine is decidedly adulterated.

As more and more people are discovering the superiority of nutrition for health such efforts by medical researchers to undermine this knowledge are ever increasing.

One final note on the recent omega-3 study. It was funded by the United States government’s National Institutes of Health and pharmaceutical interests while reported deceptively by the mainstream press.

This is why I sometimes refer to the unholy trinity of Big Government, Big Pharma and Big Media as they all act together as one in their own interests decidedly not in the very best interests of you and of yours.

Christopher C. Barr, Nutritional Historian