Although I do not share the opinion of those who avoid vaccinating their children, I most certainly sympathize with their belief that information that comes forth from the government that is allegedly "scientific" is often times nothing more than propaganda in support of the latest political fad. Why should I potentially endanger the life of my child simply because a career politician or bureaucrat has made the declaration that something is safe? There are plenty of examples where what our rulers have told us ended up being wrong and even harmful in some cases. The official declarations from the federal government about what foods are good or bad for us is a case study. Let's consider it for a while today.
Maybe you saw the report that came out last week. I found it tucked away in the middle of my Denver Post under the headline, "Dietary Report: Eggs, coffee in, but sugar is out." Take a moment and, if you have lived long enough, think back to what the government told us about unhealthy eating and drinking habits just twenty years ago. Butter, eggs, salt, coffee and sunshine (not something to be eaten, I understand) have all been demonized in the recent past. Red meats have also been on the list of verboten consumables. I remember when I was told to consume no more than two eggs per week. The reason given for the dramatic reduction in egg consumption was the fact that dietary cholesterol was directly related to serum cholesterol. The more eggs I ate the more my blood cholesterol would rise. The more my blood cholesterol would rise the greater my chances of coronary heart disease. So to avoid a heart attack before reaching the age I presently find myself having attained I was told to cut out the eggs. Butter was equally as bad. It was like lining my veins and arteries with fat and sure to result in a horrible death before the age of 60. Salt and coffee were terrible as well. Salt added nothing to my body's food requirements and only increased my blood pressure. Increasing my blood pressure was sure to cause a stroke before the age of 60. Coffee, with the ticking time bomb of caffeine within it, was also going to raise my blood pressure and kill me with a brain aneurism before my present age. Being an obedient citizen and willing subject to my intellectual superiors I immediately complied with their dictates.
Here is some of what the new government study reported, "Recommendations...from a government advisory committee call for an environmentally friendly diet lower in red and processed meats. But the panel would reverse previous guidance on limiting dietary cholesterol. And it says the caffeine in a few cups of coffee could actually be good for you. The committee also is backing off stricter limits on salt...It's recommending the first real limits on sugar....The report says dietary cholesterol now is not considered a nutrient of concern for over consumption. This follows increasing medical research showing the amount of cholesterol in your bloodstream is more complicated than once thought....available evidence shows no appreciable relationship between heart disease and how much dietary cholesterol you eat....The report looks at caffeine for the first time, and says coffee is OK -- even good for you. The panel says there is strong evidence that three to five cups a day can be part of a healthier diet, and there is consistent evidence that it's even associated with reduced risk of type 2 diabetes and heart disease..The panel said Americans should eat less meat to protect the environment. Meat eaters have been linked to a larger carbon footprint than vegetarians." Wow! Did you get all that?
Our government handlers are telling us to stop eating red meat not because it contributes to heart disease and increases our chances of suffering a stroke. No, we are to stop eating red meat because cows are environmentally unfriendly and those of us who appreciate a nice steak are contributing to global warming! Now that is high quality science if I have ever seen it. Also notice how the things like eggs and coffee which we were previously informed would lead to our early demise are now actually good for us. My question is this, where is the apology for the previous bad advice? If I made a major screw up like what was made in the past, significantly affecting the lives of millions of people for decades, I would at least say I am sorry for the bad advice. But government does not work that way. Here is another question, where is the apology for the egg industry? How much money did the egg industry lose as a result of the government's previous bad advice? Should there not be reparations to make good on the damages? I would think there should be. But no, government does not apologize and government is not accountable for what it has done in the past.
I added sunshine to the list of forbidden things earlier in this post. The government has been on a crusade against sunshine. People are expected to lather up with SPF 1000 prior to exposing themselves to sunlight for more than a second or two. As a direct result of the government's advice the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika are finding that many of them are suffering from a serious Vitamin D deficiency. Rather than recommending a bit of sunshine to solve the problem the government pill-pushers are now recommending people supplement their diets with Vitamin D pills. Ah yes, a pill will solve everything, won't it?
Most galling of all about the report is the unabashed endorsement of creating dietary standards based upon non-scientific political agendas. The citizens of this land are told to not eat certain items because of how the practice will allegedly affect the environment. What does that have to do with healthy eating standards for human beings? Nothing, of course. Why should I trust anything the government says? When no effort is made to hide the fact that the "scientific" recommendations being made are the direct result of a idiotic political bias why should I ever adhere to them? The government has been wrong about almost everything almost all of the time. In the free market we would discover that the parade of erroneous information emanating from government sources would eventually discount the value of that information to zero. Nobody but lovers of government would ever pay attention to what is being said. That sounds like a pretty good idea to me. Now I am going to go cook up a steak and baked potato, smothered in butter and washed down with a 32 ounce Coke. It is my belief that such a diet is the best way to keep me out of government hospitals crawling with government approved health technicians.