Scott Porter, MD
I am a licensed MD who is board certified in anesthesiology. Doctors are NOT taught about proper nutrition in medical school. We may be taught about vitamin deficiencies and syndromes but we are influenced by government guidelines on nutrition. And government guidelines are made by a panel of 20-25 individuals (depending on the year) every five years. These individuals typically have strong ties to the food industry. I have spent a great deal of time researching what is the proper human diet and what is best for metabolic health. My opinions are formed based on research and I include the evidence in this website. I realize that I have a twofold job - put this info in an easily digestible form for the layperson, while providing comprehensive explanations for medical professionals. Will my opinions always be correct? Probably not as research is ever evolving and some of the studies are not ideal. Most of the nutritional guideline studies are epidemiological studies and can only show associations and NOT causation. And many studies remain hidden (statin research) or were delayed, not initially published, or published in small journals to prevent being seen. Further, researchers who go against the grain tend not to get grants and funding, have their lab spaces taken away or are ostracized from the academic community. For many, those penalties are career killers and are just not worth it. Thus, research, in and of itself, is flawed. But the trend towards proper research and diet has begun with the development of social media where individuals can reach a mass audience and bypass the censorship. This does not mean that whatever is on the internet is true. But, doctors are finding communities that are highly educational such as the “Low Carb Down Under” lectures on YouTube. That is where I first started and my knowledge has rapidly expanded once the veil of censorship was removed. ALWAYS take what you are told with skepticism and ask for proof of the truth.
References
Mialon M, Serodio PM, Crosbie E, et al. Conflicts of interest for members of the US 2020 dietary guidelines advisory committee. Public Heal. Nutr. 2022;27(1):e69.
Abstract
Objectives: To measure incidence of conflicts of interest (COI) with food and pharmaceutical industry actors on the advisory committee for the 2020–2025 US Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) and assess the adequacy of current mechanisms to disclose and manage COI among the committee’s members. Design: We compiled longitudinal data from archival sources on connections between members of the DGA’s advisory committee and actors. We hypothesised that these committee members, who oversee the science for the most influential dietary policy in the USA, might have significant COI that would be relevant to their decision making. Disclosure of COI on this committee was recommended in 2017 by the National Academies of Sciences in order to increase transparency and manage bias, but public disclosure of the committee’s COI does not appear to have taken place. Setting: The committee was composed of twenty experts. Participants: None. Results: Our analysis found that 95 % of the committee members had COI with the food and/or pharmaceutical industries and that particular actors, including Kellogg, Abbott, Kraft, Mead Johnson, General Mills, Dannon and the International Life Sciences, had connections with multiple members. Research funding and membership of an advisory/executive board jointly accounted for more than 60 % of the total number of COI documented. Conclusions: Trustworthy dietary guidelines result from a transparent, objective and science-based, process. Our analysis has shown that the significant and widespread COI on the committee prevent the DGA from achieving the recommended standard for transparency without mechanisms in place to make this information publicly available.