SILLY SCIENCE IV – Government, Madison Avenue and Wall Street

Dennis Garvin
Dennis Garvin

While my initial purpose in writing this series on ‘silly science’ was to tease the scientific atheists, I would be remiss if I ignored the silly – perhaps sinister – science of the Big Three: government, advertisers, and investors.

Wall Street and Madison Avenue may merely be indicted, then dismissed as unworthy of comment. Their goal is to make money. They are amoral, as evidenced by the need for watchdog groups, the SEC, and the FDA. Of course, the government providing agencies that oversee the activities of these institutions is a bit like putting Henry VIII in charge of marital counseling.

With the advent of Medicare, our government of 50 years ago, without constitutional mandate or permission, became maternal. Among other insanities, it began to make dietary recommendations. Granted, they based the advice on the best scientific evidence available at the time.

The problem begins when science becomes wedded to a bureaucracy that (for self-preservation) never admits error (the last time government admitted error was in the repeal of Prohibition; and that required a constitutional amendment). Government guidelines of a diet low in fat, reasonable carbohydrate, and high in protein (preferably from grain) have not changed. This government position corresponds precisely with the explosion of obesity, diabetes, hypertension, renal disease, and Alzheimer’s. While science is producing data contrary to government guidelines, the guidelines persist.

The emphasis on grain, rather than meat, as a protein source is coming under fire. There never was data to show the superiority of grain protein; indeed, mounting data to the contrary. Additionally, most grains have been genetically altered and bear no relation at all to the bread mentioned in the Bible. Recently, even China (yes, the country that puts lead paint on toys) rejected a genetically engineered corn for domestic consumption that had been approved by the FDA for our use. Never in the history of man has a country consumed such alien proteins and been as sick as we are.

Additionally, the government is heavily invested in corn, a subsidized grain crop. As a biofuel additive (ethanol in gasoline) and as a food/food additive, corn (as a commodity) blurs the margins between government, advertisers, and investors. As a biofuel, there are increasing data that, instead of protecting the environment by reducing consumption of fossil fuels, combusted corn may be harming the environment as much or more; again, no solid data on long-term effects before the government began to extoll its environmental virtues.

As a food, corn/corn oil/ corn syrup (as a carbohydrate source) may be, according to recent science, frankly toxic. This research will no doubt be dismissed with derision by the vested interests in corn usage, but their science is every bit as good, or bad, as that of a government lacking a modern scientific base (Read ‘Grain Brain’, by Dr. David Perlmutter, a neurologist).

This trio has also permitted, or promoted, widespread use of compounds of questionable benefit and even more questionable safety. Let’s look at just two:

Sunscreen- promoted as reducing skin cancer, this product is now being implicated in causing bone abnormalities because it reduces conversion of Vitamin D into the active agent for calcium metabolism and bone mineralization. The resulting deficiency, rickets, is on the increase in the USA. If left untreated until bone growth ends, it is uncorrectable.

It is true that proper use of sunscreen reduces the risk of basal cell or squamous cell carcinoma of the skin. These cancers, however, are rarely lethal if treated early. Melanoma, however, a lethal form of skin cancer, has been increasing since the introduction of sunscreen. This might be coincidence or it may be that many sunscreens do not block UV A waves. Or it may be that people at risk for melanoma stay out too long in the sun because of a false sense of safety from these products. Again, marketing and government advice preceded adequate long-term studies.

Hand sanitizer- Here, the trio of government-advertisers-investors is at the top of their game.  Studies have proven fewer days lost from school/work with the use of hand sanitizers; however, no clear advantage over handwashing. Again we have no data on long-term effects. Being alcohol, sanitizer is a desiccant (drying agent). Will daily use by children result in scarred, wrinkled skin at a young age? While we don’t know, ask yourself if you would wash your face daily with alcohol?

Alcohol removes keratin, a protective product of normal skin function. We attribute a protective function to this layer. In an effort to protect our children, are we compromising their defense, with both short and long-term immune consequence? Again, no data.

A 2 oz. bottle of average sanitizer is 66% ethanol. That is equivalent to 132 proof corn whiskey or vodka (yup, corn and potatoes are usually the source). It is not denatured. That means it can be consumed, resulting in inebriation. This is already being done among teenagers (called getting a ‘hand sanity fix.’) There are even online recipes for returning it to a liquid state. Ask yourself if you want your child washing their hands with 120 proof moonshine.

Hand sanitizer, perhaps most sinister of all, is flammable. In this respect, it is like Sterno, or ‘canned heat.’ Go to survivalist websites and you will see sanitizer recommended as a substitute for sterno in starting fires, cooking, heating. Actually, sterno is actually safer, being too thick to spread. You can set fire to sanitizer and throw it. It will splatter and continue to burn. Sound familiar? It should: jellied gasoline, after all, was the earliest form of napalm.

Science can confuse as much as it can inform. If you add poor science, political maneuvering, and profit motives, you have a bizarre laboratory experience. The USA is fast becoming a nation of lab rats.

Dennis Garvin MD is the author of ‘Case Files of an Angel.’ He also co-author of ‘Growing up in Stephentown’. Both books are available at Amazon.com, Barnes& Nobles, and westwoodpress.com

Latest Articles

1 COMMENT

  1. Dennis, could part of the problem be the disproportionate influence that Wall Street and Madison Avenue wield in Washington? For example, do you think we would still be subsidizing corn and the USDA would still be recommending a grain-based diet if it wasn’t for the powerful “Big Agriculture” lobby?

- Advertisement -

Latest Articles

- Advertisement -

Related Articles