Deep Nutrition- Part 3

I have read so many different books and articles on traditional nutrition that I have come to distrust the medical community as a whole.  I am not proud of this, and my husband thinks I am a loon for my viewpoints. However, after working for a major pharmaceutical company and doing nutritional research for years, I cannot take any other stance on the matter. I believe most mainstream medical professionals are driven by profit because they have to be! Insurance companies, lawsuits, and drug-happy patients are all working against their presumably original desire to simply heal people.  And this is not a hard and fast rule that applies to all doctors, I just think it is a general rule that has contributed to the sickening of the American people. 

So let me share with you one medical professional's views on the subject:

"Doctors get their information from researchers. Researchers can only do research when they can get grant funding.  These days, grants come from industry or special interest groups, and tend to support either the use of expensive medications and technology, or a demand for more medical coverage for one of many speical interest groups.  I didn't know research had to fall into one of these two categories to be funded until Luke and I took a plane trip to California to meet with researchers at UCLA and UCSF.  There, I met with over a dozen doctors and PhDs to bring up the possibility that there might be an obvious, though currently overlooked, relationship between modern food and disease.

The trip was a real eye-opener.  These researchers held fast to the idea that their primary directive was improving human health.  But it soon became clear that their more immediate goal, by virtue of the realities of economics, was the acquisition of grant funds, necessitating never-ending compromises between the exigencies of financing and the integrity of the science.  I learned from an epidemiologist that various agricultural interests funded most of his research in nutrition, and out of financial necessity, he was directed toward the promotion of the largest crops: fruits.  As an epidemiologist, he was unaware that excess fruit consumption leads to health problems due to the high sugar-to-nutrient ratio in fruit.  And he was surprised when a collegue pointed out that she'd found, after advising her patients to eat the recommended three to six servings of fruit a day, that doing so raised their triglycerides to unhealthy levels.

Hoping to drive home the point that our bodies demand more nutrition than we can get from fruit, vegetables, grains, and low-fat meat, and hoping to stir up interest in doing more research on nutrition and optimal fetal and facial development, I described the research of a pertinent study.  It showed that one in three pregnant women consuming what mainstream research suggests would be a healthy diet nevertheless gave birth to babies with dangerously low levels of vitamin A in their blood.  Vitamin A deficiency is associated with eye, skeleton, and organ defects.

The epidemiologist was fascinated but admitted that his reliance on funding from fruit growers bound him to continue producing more and more research just like he'd already produced-showing fruits are "good for us".  I learned that neither he nor anyone else at UCLA would likely be able to pursue this new nutritional issue or anything similar because there was no giant industry to support it." 

I personally think fruit is healthy- the spectrum of fruit does carry a wide variety of bioavailable nutrients.  However, the best way to assimilate these nutrients is to eat the fruit cooked with a bit of butter.  Or a lot of butter. The butterfat has a component referred to as "Activator X" (Google this term with the name Weston A. Price to find out more) that allows your body to use more of the vitamins in fruits and vegetables.  Have you ever baked an apple with raisins, cinnamon, and butter? Good heavens!

Have you heard this school of thought before? What do you think?