Global Warming Climate Change isn’t the only “science” we would do well to be skeptical of:
Although researchers quietly acknowledged that the data were “inconclusive and contradictory” or “inconsistent and contradictory” — two quotes from the cardiologist Jeremiah Stamler, a leading proponent of the eat-less-salt campaign, in 1967 and 1981 — publicly, the link between salt and blood pressure was upgraded from hypothesis to fact.
Those trials have been followed by a slew of studies suggesting that reducing sodium to anything like what government policy refers to as a “safe upper limit” is likely to do more harm than good.
Proponents of the eat-less-salt campaign tend to deal with this contradictory evidence by implying that anyone raising it is a shill for the food industry and doesn’t care about saving lives. An N.I.H. administrator told me back in 1998 that to publicly question the science on salt was to play into the hands of the industry. “As long as there are things in the media that say the salt controversy continues,” he said, “they win.”
Read that last paragraph again.
Sounds eerily familiar doesn’t it?
Methinks any time “scientific consensus” is touted to press an agenda or control our behavior, our automatic reflex should be to take it with a large grain of salt (sorry, couldn’t help myself).
Hat tip to Hot Air