The world is secretly ruled by Templars. The world is secretly ruled by masons. The world is secretly ruled by the Elders of Zion according to their "Protocols".The world is secretly ruled by the Rothschilds. The world is secretly ruled by reptiloids that came from the constellation Draco, or, perhaps, Orion, shift their shapes to make themselves looking like terrestrial politicians and then replace them. One would wonder: How have all these rulers of the world managed to avoid quarreling between themselves until now?
Have you seen white trails behind airplanes in the sky? Governments disperse chemicals that make us obedient to them.
Earth is flat. And photos from space, where Earth is seemingly round, shown to us by NASA in a conspiracy with the government, are meant to fool us. And this nonsense about the round Earth is taught at schools according to instructions of the same governments. It is not clear how governments benefit from this, but they know better.
Yes, all these are conspiracy theories, and they have nothing to do with the reality. There are many of them, and new ones periodically emerge. But those that were in fashion earlier, are not forgotten and periodically became fashionable again.
Besides conspiracy theories, there are real conspiracies. And sometimes, something that looks like a conspiracy theory, in fact, points at a conspiracy. This was the case with tobacco smoking. It has always been harmful, but did not cause a serious problem until tobacco product became a business of large corporations. Initially, nobody linked the growth of lung cancer cases with the emergence of a fashion for smoking. But when the problem became acute, some doctors and scientists began to notice a connection between the lung cancer and tobacco smoking. Statistical data indicated a strong correlation, and special observations confirmed a cause-and-effect connection.
No, these doctors and scientists did not claim that it was a conspiracy of corporations with the purpose to enrich themselves at the cost of health of people. They just published results of their observations and studies and tried to draw public attention to the danger. But that was enough to declare them pseudo-scientists. Large tobacco companies. to calm down the society, ordered their own research, which they financed. And those research studies confirmed exactly what the corporations had hoped them to confirm, namely, that tobacco smoking was not related to the increase of the number of lung cancer cases. What a lucky coincidence! Besides, smoking helps to calm down and mitigates stress – does this not help to improve health?
Governments took the side of the corporations. Certainly, out of considerations of justice and without any personal benefits. Who would you trust? Some random doctors and scientists who carried out their observations out of their own initiative and with the use of equipment available to them, or specialists hired by corporations and provided with the most advanced equipment? Meanwhile, the incidence of lung cancer reached the level of an epidemic. Journalists began to intervene. The society began to worry. But they were told that it was just one more conspiracy theory.
Around 20 years had passed before tobacco smoking was finally recognized as one of the causes of lung cancer. Only then, advertisement of tobacco was banned and high excises were imposed on tobacco products to limit demand for them.
People learned how to make crystalline sugar over 2000 years ago. First, it was produced in India, and then in China. Much later, around 300 years ago, its manufacturing was established in tropical colonies, from where it was supplied to Europe. But for a long time, it remained expensive and affordable to rather few people. Out of sweets, mostly fruits and berries were available, and also rather expensive honey. Juice was not yet produces, except, probably, out of grapes, and mostly for making wine out of it.
People learned to make oil out of certain seeds a rather long time ago. But it was used for lubricating mechanisms, as a fuel oil lamps and as a base for oil paints. And for some kinds of oils, there were medical, cosmetic or ritual applications. The idea to use seed oils as food appeared only in the second half of the 19th century.
In those times, obesity occurred, but was rare. Type two diabetes was also very rare. Cardiovascular diseases occurred to people of very advanced age. Dementia, even in those who lived over 80 years, was rare. Oncological diseases were an exception. This continued practically to the middle of the 20th century.
Yes, we can remember that, in those times, the average life span was much shorter than it is now. Indeed, at the beginning of the 20th century, people, on average, lived until around 50, and in the 17th century, to around 35-37 years. But that was on average. Many people died very young because of infectious diseases or got killed in wars. However, those who survived until they were 40, often lived even after they were 60, and not infrequently lived to the age, which, even according to temporary standards, is considered as a very old age. At that, "diseases of modernity" either did not affect them until their deaths, or appeared in the last several years of life (except cancer, which could appear in any age, but was rather rare).
With the growth of affordability of sugar and seed oils, and also margarine (which was invented at the beginning of the 20th century), cases of obesity, type two diabetes and cardiovascular disorders began to rise too. Of course, it could be a coincidence.
But then there were two more coincidences. In the second half of the 20th century, manufacturing of food began to turn into a hi-tech industry. Ultra-processed food began to emerge, which could be stored for a long time and quickly prepared for eating. Very convenient. And just accidentally, about ten years after that, the cases of those "diseases of the civilization" became much more frequent.
Even though it was still too far to the scale of the "epidemic" that we have not, specialists began to raise alarm. Special commissions were appointed, special studies were carried out. And the "culprits" were found. Of course, they could not be the respectable corporations that produced cheap and convenient food, which was also tasty, because it was generously laced with sugar. Those were fats that appeared to be the culprits. Or, more precisely, they were appointed culprits.
There was even a study carried out on the statistical data with the use of the multifactor regression analysis, which confirmed "harmfulness" of fats. At that time, it was difficult to do it, because computers were still too expensive, and their computing power was very limited. It could be considered a scientific feat, and it was pronounced as such. Many later studies referred to this one. But now scientists see something strange in that study. Out of available data on 44 countries, the author had selected only seven countries (it is even known as "the seven countries study"), and exactly those that clearly demonstrated his hypothesis about "harmfulness" of fats. And the data that contradicted this hypothesis, the author had just rejected. Nevertheless, his scientific conclusions made in such a strange way pleased very much certain business groups and the US government, and the author was supported.
There was also an episode, when food in the USA became a political issue. It needed to be urgently solved to ensure the reelection of a certain person for the presidency. And this issue was solved by introduction of federal subsidies for certain kinds of food, in particular, sugar.
And, on the background of these events, fats were declared guilty of growing health problems. An anti-fat propaganda campaign began. Doctors recommended their patients to limit consumption of fats. The government set a task to produce low-fat and no-fat products. But what the calories that used to come from fats could be replaced with? Of course, with carbohydrates. All sorts of cereals, corn and oat flakes, quick cooking noodles (just add some boiling water and wait for 5 minutes), sweet defatted yogurts, fruit juices with added sugar and sweet fizzy drinks.
Again, somehow it coincided that, after all these measures, the increase of the number of cases of obesity, type two diabetes and cardiovascular problems speeded up.
Also, the industrial manufacturers of vegetable oils (sunflower, rape seed and cotton seed oils) and of margarine became disturbed. What about us? Is it possible that our vegetable fats can be to blame too? Studies were repeated, and they "showed" that not all fats are harmful, but only saturated fats of animal origin. Because saturated fats contain "terrible" cholesterol. The fact that cholesterol is absolutely necessary for us and that, without it, we will die soon, nobody cared about. Culprits guilty of the "epidemic" were urgently needed, and they were found.
Respective corrections were introduced into the recommendations. French fries and chips, margarine spreads and donuts were rehabilitated.
Did this stop the "epidemic"? No, it continued gaining momentum, because, with a large amount of carbohydrates, it is easy to eat a lot of fats (while eating a lot of fats without carbs is difficult without force-feeding). In addition, the frequency of cases of cancer began to increase. Must be a coincidence again.
Somewhere since the 1990s, the "epidemic" gained threatening proportions. It became a threat not only to the individual health of many people, but also to the economic security of the USA. Other countries began to join recommendations to limit fats and began to widely use convenient ultra-processed food.
As of the first half of the 2020s, one in 16 people was diagnosed with type two diabetes. With the population of Earth at that time about 8 billion, this means about half a billion. And there are also people with prediabetes, about which, most of those who have it, have no idea and, for this reason, do not come to doctors. In many countries, this condition is not even officially recognized as a health problem. Out of them, 70% become type-two diabetics in 5 to 6 years. Their number can be estimated only statistically, that is, approximately. An optimistic estimation is 1.5 billion, that is, together with those who already have type two diabetes, they make a quarter of the population of the planet.
After the middle of the 1980s, the epidemic began to "grow younger". In the 1990s, the fatty liver disease began to appear in children, while earlier it was observed almost exclusively in long-term chronic alcoholics. And around 2010, the number of such children was already large, and some where just 5 years of age.
Dementia, Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease increased in frequency and became "younger". As of the first half of the 2020s, at the age from 60 to 65, 1.3% of people already have a confirmed diangosis of dementia, and at the age of 80 to 85, there are 11,6% such people, one in nine; and this situation is getting worse.
And there are also cardiovascular and oncological diseases. Myocardial infarction at the age of 45-50 and brain stroke at 55-60 have long ceased being something exceptional. In 2010, the probability of development of an oncological disease in typical young and seemingly healthy Americans during their further life was estimated as around 25%. The rate of growth of these diseases mysteriously similar to the rate of growth of obesity and type two diabetes.
The USA is the leader in the world in these problems. Other countries, though slowly, are catching up.
Many sick people – large demand for medications. Since known medicines did not show a sufficient effect, it was necessary to develop new ones. Every time, emergence of a new medication for something was celebrated as a victory over a terrible disease. Later it appeared that the disease did not succumb to this medication, and new medications needed to be found. Besides medications, other things were necessary: clinics, medical equipment, goods and products for maintenance of health. And all this has become a considerable part of the economy of developed countries.
And also there is a high demand for fitness and goods for it. Certainly, this was "people's own fault" that they became obese, because they did not exercise. So, the free market reacted and offered these people goods and services. This is also a considerable segment of the economy. Yes, physical activity is very important, but it is not enough to overcome problems created independently from it.
This may sound cynically, but this is a fact – this "epidemic" is economically beneficial. However, there is a boundary, beyond which economic advantages become smaller than economic losses. Some countries have already reached it or will get to it soon. And what is beyond this boundary? Very likely, a collapse of the social security systems and medical help systems, which simply will not have money and other resources to help all ill people, and, probably, a collapse by the entire economies.
Who is to stop this "epidemic"? Not likely those who get economic benefits from it. We will have to stop it on our own, each of us, and exclusively for our own sake and for our relatives, so that we would not become a burden for them for many years.
Of course, there were people, including scientists, who understood that fats, which traditionally made a considerable part of our ration, could not be the cause of this "epidemic". They carried out their own research, they even published their results sometimes. But to get funding for research that could deny fats as the cause of the epidemic and pointed other culprits – excess consumption of easily metabolizable carbohydrates and sugar – was practically impossible for them.
No, certainly, these people were not persecuted. They simply did not get orders and financing for research, and they were denied publications of their materials. This is completely normal – those who finance research have the right to decide what studies to finance, and what not to. Those who publish scientific journals, have the right to decide what to publish in them and what not to.
Despite everything, some studies were still carried out and some results were published. They were criticized, their authors were laughed at. Authors were pointed out that their results had not been obtained in randomized controlled trials, which are thought to be the "gold standard" of the medical science. A logical objection that those results were about food, rather than completely new medications, were not accepted. Facts that a considerable part of results of those studies were confirmed by certain studies carried out according to the gold standard, and even more results were obtained by the method of observation (the so-called "epidemiological studies", which are also recognized as acceptable, when an experiment is not possible), and the authors just put all those things together and draw conclusions.
How insulin controls the blood glucose level has been known since the beginning of the 20th century. The fact that too high level of insulin blocks expenditure of fats has been known since the beginning of the 1960s. But criticism of those who have drawn conclusions out of this and recommend reduction of carbohydrates and increase of fats in food for restoration of normal metabolism never stops. At that, scientific facts about the role of insulin in metabolism are not objected, but simply ignored, so that they would not be an obstacle to the criticism.
In the 2020s, results of a study emerged, which was widely popularized by those who want to persuade us that consumption of fats, especially saturated ones, is harmful for our health. In this study, it was established that obese people accumulate some amount of fats in the muscle cells (3 to 4 times more than people with the normal body mass), and that these fats cannot be effectively used as fuel. As a result, muscles poison themselves. Also, these people have high insulin resistance and high level of insulin in their blood. Out of this, a conclusion is made that the cause of insulin resistance is not glucose at all, but fats.
But this study has one more part. Athletes also accumulate 3 to 4 times more fats in the muscle cells than common people do. But their muscles use these fats effectively and without poisoning themselves. And athletes do not have insulin resistance, and their insulin level is normal and elevates briefly only after having a meal.
We are not told about these athletes. We are not told that the cause of accumulation of fats in muscles of obese people is overstuffed cells of the fat tissue, and, in muscles of athletes, the necessity of intensive physical activity. We are also not told that this is because of high insulin level and insulin resistance that obese people cannot use these fats effectively, while athletes can use fats in their muscles because their insulin level is normal. So, maybe, the cause of insulin resistance are not fats?
But do we need to know this? We should know only what we are allowed to know.
It turned out that some people analyzed the facts, made their own conclusions, and, despite recommendations of respected organizations, began to reduce consumption of carbohydrates and increase consumption of fats, and also to implement other things described in the page "Repair of the system". And, miraculously, they managed to reduce the body mass, get rid of type two diabetes, reduce blood pressure and improve work of the cardiovascular system and the brain.
By 2010, there were several millions of such people, and it became impossible to ignore them. But they are still criticized and threatened by terrible consequences to their health because of wrong decisions contradicting to the official recommendations.
But not everyone has forgotten the story about the tobacco products and lung cancer. Because of that, some bureaucrats preserve a fear of a possible repetition. So, somewhere in 2013, two leading US organizations dealing with the US public health, quietly removed from their documents the recommendation not to consume saturated fats. Literally, quietly. Without explanations why they were removed and without mentioning that they had ever existed.
No, as of 2024, it has not yet been admitted that the cause of those large-scale "epidemics" were wrong recommendations about food consumption. Official recommendations on reduction of carbohydrates and increase of saturated fats in food have not yet been issued. Only recommendations not to consume saturated fats have been removed. Many medical doctors continue to recommend limitation of saturated fats and increase of carbohydrates in food – nobody has told them that the recommendation as for limitation of consumption of fats has been removed, so they keep repeating what they have been taught for decades. And we are happy about that, because it is such a pleasure to eat something sweet. It is difficult to stop a speeding train.
Certainly, everything written here is just another conspiracy theory.
Do not pay attention.
Or, as you want.
There is no summary of this page.
End of page "A conspiracy theory, or a conspiracy?".
One more "off topic" page: