Some good quotes here, and I'm pleased that Fettke and colleagues are not taking this quietly:

Go, Dr. Fettke.

On the heels of the nutritionist who lost her license because of giving good, data backed advice to T2 diabetics, this issue needs to be shouted out, not only to all of Australia, but to the world.

The entire world of diabetes "education" and support is led by people who know better, but are too dependent on the high sugar food industry sponsors that support them.

From the Examiner link:

No, they are not scientists. Ask any nutritionist anything about science, they have no clue whatsoever. The are not taught the scientific method. They are not taught the phase system of experimental research. They are not even taught Occam's razor. They are not taught to think critically and skeptically. They are not taught to read published scientific literature. They are not taught nutrition history, how their curriculum was developed or by whom. They are not taught the difference between association and causation, nor the difference between observational research and experimental research. Turn these into questions next time a nutritionist claims to be a scientist, i.e. please recite the four basic steps of the scientific method. They are not taught any of this because that is not what they are paid to do. If they were taught all of it, we'd have a bunch of nutritionists questioning everything they do all the time, just like genuine scientists, and their field would progress at a fantastic pace, for the better. This idea of nutritionists being nutrition scientists, it doesn't come from Claire Collins or indeed from any trained nutritionist (it can't, they are not taught anything about science, how could they possibly imagine that argument?), it's just the latest script from her financiers, and she probably believes it because she is not trained to criticize it, nor would she want to since it also gives her the appearance of expertise. Indeed, those who do get a clue, they begin to question everything they do and often reject some, if not all they've been taught, and instead start to do the complete opposite.

As for the AHPRA's requirements, is it one of their requirements that one be trained as a scientist? I'm going to bet it's not. Indeed are medical practitioners required to be trained as scientists? So what's all the hype about nutritionists being nutrition scientists? Smoke and mirrors, diversion, red herring, strawman, whatever. It gives the appearance of competence and expertise, yet has absolutely no bearing on the actual performance of their profession.

Prof. Grant Schofield response: https://profgrant.com/2016/08/16/au...-the-messenger/

And minutes ago, DietDoctor added commentary by Dr Jason Fung.

http://www.dietdoctor.com/dr-fettke...ending-low-carb

This reminds me of the anthropogenic global warming debate. Running afoul of the AGW narrative will cost you tenure, research dollars, and personal reputation. There's a lot of money and power in the status quo and they don't tolerate dissent very well.

The difference, of course, is that the members of the scientific community who deny climate change always seem to have close connections to the petrochemical industry.

But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

As is the coincidence that those who deny that LCHF can help with so many lifestyle diseases have connections to Big Food and Big Pharma.

To be fair--Jeff Volek has had some sponsorship from the Egg board, the famous Steffanson study looking at an all-meat diet received some funding from the meat industry, etc. I don't think this always taints the individual scientist--but there is a potential distortion to just what kind of studies get done, even if they are done honestly.

In Australia's case-I do wonder whether Kellogg's funding of nutritional studies, like Jenny Brand-Miller's glycemic index stuff etc. has had a distorting effect on the general environment.

A very good analogy, and when they realized that the globe wasn't always warming, recently, they changed it to "climate change." Who can argue??? The anthropogenic bit is the sticky one that still attracts much speculation.

How dare he? It's like he thinks he is a nutritionist, or something!

People have to go to school for that, you know.

/s

Interesting, and appalling. Isn't the normal advice always "Make sure to consult with your doctor when undertaking any weightless diet"?

Sure, but apparently your doctor is not allowed to tell you anything other than "eat less, move more" if you ask - or possibly hand out a 1200-calorie low fat weekly eating plan.

Yeah? I work for a corporation that internationally provides university-level textbooks and online materials. That university study? Based on these print and digital textbooks and correlated pedagogy. Ours read just like the other primary competitors:

* Energy drinks like Red Bull are recommended
* Vitamins and supplements are just expensive urine
* Carbohydrates in the diet are a requirement for human survival
* Grains especially whole-grains are mandatory for human health
* "Low-carb" eating plans are a dangerous fad
* Cholesterol is dangerous and to be avoided along with saturated fats

This is the university study that is generating "scientist" experts? I see.

Lovely.

PJ

PS: I literally avoid working on nutrition pedagogy materials if I can because I swear my blood pressure rises dangerously just seeing it. I mean in this case it's not only a matter of "give bad advice that helps kill people slowly, horrifically, but lucratively," it's a matter of "give bad advice that helps TRAIN whole armies of people to go out and each evangelize that bad advice into lots of people killed slowly, horrifically, but lucratively."

Is mass murder ok if it's done fairly slowly over years instead of suddenly? Is it ok if the action is only 80% of the cause of the death not 100%? Is helping someone suffer losing one limb and eye at a time ok as long as they're not dead... yet?

I see rendering the same nutritional advice that in a matter of decades has utterly wrecked our culture -- and I attribute this to far more than health because I believe health affects everything from social behavior to politics -- to be some kind of ethical crime at this point.

"Educating" people into the same BS that was wrong 40 years ago and is still wrong -- so they can then feel they are actually saving people with it (OMFG) is just facepalm wake-me-when-it's over kind of stuff.

.

The sad thing, PJ, is that 40 years ago, it wasn't the same advice. The move toward more and more grains and less healthy fat had just begun. Diabetics were taught to limit their carbs, both per meal and per day, and to use their insulin to help regulate, not to top off when a high carb treat was consumed.

T2D was rare, and when DXed, the advice was the same.

I agree about the utter criminality of the advice that people are given. Husband, not a healthcare type person, just gives me the "You are getting a little over the top" look, when I talk about jailing the board of the ADA.

But dang it, I'm serious.

I get that look all the time:

When I gently mention that diabetics should aim for less than 140 or 120 or whatever their doctor says. But doctors can be sued if their patient becomes hypoglycemic, and absolutely no penalties are attached as their patients slowly deteriorate with "inevitable" chronic problems. So they are professionally guided to not take care of diabetics.

When I mention that processed foods are designed to make us hungry. Because I so often get the startled look that means they have noticed that, too.

I bring up statins, and then I really sound like a lunatic, but I do it anyway because I don't want their agonizing death on my conscience.

It's now obvious that Jeff Volek has succumbed to Big Egg and promotes eggs just for the profit.