The history of medicine has more skeletons in its closet than causalities from all wars combined. All deadly medical "innovations" begin with good intentions, conceived and promoted on seemingly logical, reasonable, and scientific principles. Only after millions of deaths does it become obvious that the logic was wrong, the reasoning - opportunistic, and the science - pure quackery. If it could have happened before, it can still happen today. And it does...
You may recall that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) was all the rage until the summer of 2002. Then, in a flash - after 15 million women were told to stop it - the rage turned into outrage: HRT had been found to increase the risk of breast cancer by 26%, heart attack by 29%, stroke by 41% [1], and ovarian cancer by 58%[2].
- Oh, boy!
- Yes, a classical case of wishful thinking turning into a Faustian bargain...
But the initial reasoning in favor of hormone replacement therapy seemed well-intentioned and bulletproof:
This method of qualitative analysis is called deductive reasoning, made famous by the immortal character of Sherlock Holmes. Deductive reasoning uses a core assumption - low hormones cause aging and diseases - to arrive at the end result - replacing lost hormones [with patch or pill containing estrogen and progesterone - ed.] will defer aging and prevent disease.
Deductive reasoning works well only when the core assumptions are correct. In this case the core assumption (that low hormones are villains) was wrong, and so were the results - more deaths and disease, not less. The investigators had also reported that there were "no clear benefits for those taking estrogen plus progestin on any of the quality of life measures"[3], that "older women taking combination hormone therapy had twice the rate of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease."[4], and that women over fifty had "two-fold higher" [5] risk of developing venous thrombosis. Venous thrombosis is the precursor to pulmonary embolism - the blockage of return blood flow to the lungs by wayward blood clots.
As expected, the renouncement of HRT was a huge success - by 2003, breast cancer rates alone were down 7%, and have kept dropping ever since. And, ironically, for the first time in many years the life expectancy of American women nudged up as well - a stern lesson to those would-be Gods so eager to challenge Mother Nature.
This catastrophic outcome of hormone replacement therapy brings up a troublesome question: If well-meaning doctors, top-flight researchers, meticulous pharmacists, inquisitive media, and stringent government overseers - irony implied and intended - could get it so wrong on HRT, can they get it wrong again on another, even grander-scale health improvement scheme?
By the end of this page, I'll prove to you beyond reasonable doubt that they can. I will also explain why. Obviously, the scheme in question is omnipresent dietary fiber. This time around, though, it isn't just middle-aged postmenopausal women who are hooked "on fiber." It's almost all Americans, of both genders and of all ages.
Comment: Keep in mind that all sources of fats should be either organic or come from sources that are grass fed or pastured.
For more information about the importance of fat in the diet - which kinds are healthy and which are not, see this Sott article:
Everything About Fat