Fatcats And The Fat Tax
The posturing by certain elements in Congress about prescription drug subsidies recently is just one more proof of the headlock the pharmaceutical industry has on this country. If the Medicare prescription drug subsidy bill is passed, it will be a windfall landing in the laps of the pharma-giants that will be for them like winning every lottery jackpot in the world, because they stand to be the only winners. It doesn't take much imagination to picture them rubbing their hands in glee as they anticipate the profits rolling in if this bill passes and is signed into law (which it will be).
Roughly 90% of elderly Americans are on some kind of prescription drug, and more than half of those are taking multiple prescriptions several times a day. On top of this, as a result of all the research I've done into the American diet, I have to tell you that it only confirms my earlier suspicions.
The Fatcats
Americans eat the nastiest, fakest diet in the world. Rats and bugs would be more nutritious than the misbegotten "Food Pyramid" cooked up by a bunch of busybodies a few years ago. (This is true. Many cultures depend on rodents and insects for most of their protein and essential saturated fatty acids. They sense instinctively what they need for health and reproduction, and the best sources of these essential nutrients. And they maintain a robust good health and fruitful fertility as long as they stick to their primitive diets.)
If you are a frequent visitor to this website, you will know my feelings about the "food pyramid," which recommends at least eleven servings of fruits, vegetables and grains a day. This makes a diet that consists of 65% carbohydrates. To top all this off, when these guys even let dietary fat get a foot in the door, it is supposed to be vegetable fats, a little fish, and little or no red meat, in spite of the fact that our bodies are composed mostly of meat and fat (I'm still trying to figure out how these people can insist that our natural diet should be loaded with grains and plants, when our historical diet has always been heavy on meats and fats, somewhat in relation to the percentage of these compounds in the makeup of our physical bodies).
Thanks to this nutrient-light diet, Americans, whose bodies are famished for real nutrition, must make do with cheap, cost-effective synthetic food that is loaded with sugar, chemicals and vegetable oils; placebos at best, toxic at worst. And people fatten, then they sicken on it. These same undernourished, overfed Americans are among the sickest populations on earth (Just ask the medical industry. They are getting rich off the illnesses of this "healthiest population in the world." Anyone who must take multiple prescription drugs several times a day is NOT healthy).
Americans take more prescription drugs than any other country on the planet, mostly because of the empty diet pushed by press, government, and the medical industry. It makes tons of money for the food/pharma-giants and the medical industry. Anybody who tells you we are the "healthiest" nation on earth must be looking at the profit lines of the food and pharmaceutical manufacturers. (Now, that's healthy!)
Have you ever thought about eating wholesome, home-ground, whole-grain breads spread with nutritious homemade butter from grass-fed, drug- and hormone-free cows? Is your family worth this kind of diet? Would you prefer to eat natural, grass-fed beef and free-range pork or poultry and eggs? Ever consider natural "ferments," like homemade pickles, sauerkraut, and relishes? These items are all part of a rich, nutritious, historical natural diet, the kind that the drug manufacturers don't want you to eat. People who eat plenty of the wholesome foods above don't need lots of prescription drugs. Sounds way too simple, but it's the way of nature, and it happens to be true.
Is it any wonder that the food manufacturers and pharmaceutical houses are alarmed when people not only reject their products, but report everywhere that the Atkins Diet really works, or that they learned not to eat junk and turned their health around?
But the fatcats won't tell you they know their convenience food sickens their research animals on a regular basis. And they also know (from REAL research) that a prolonged diet of this stuff will bring on numerous diseases. Diseases, I might add, that just happen to be treated by the very things the pharmaceutical companies manufacture. It's always in the best interest of pharmaceutical manufacturers to let you stay on the sick side, because you will keep using their products. If they find a cure for any of these diseases, they kill the goose that lays the golden egg. That's right...they can't come up with a cure, or they cheat themselves of tons of money.
And the best partner these guys can have for keeping you on the sick side is the food industry. Do the equation, like I did: Bad diet = big profits for food giants -> induced disease -> pharmaceutical to treat induced disease = big profits for the drug manufacturers. Notice the victims in here anywhere? When these guys look at you, they see dollar signs. They don't see people who are dying from the poisons they make. They see more consumers for their goods. As long as there is a steady flow of these consumers, they continue to make obscene profits. (How long would this situation continue if the people were finally educated about the synthetic diet they eat every day and began turning back to the natural, historical diets of their great-grandparents?)
So, what does this tell us? I don't know about you, but it tells me that they are knowingly marketing "foods" that are so depleted and refined that they have no nutrition value at all beyond synthetic vitamins, foods that are so heavily loaded with sugar in several forms, fillers, conditioners, emulsifiers, colorings, flavorings, texturizers, binders, stiffeners, and preservatives that there is really no room left for real FOOD. They knowingly market these things because they are profitable (that means they don't have much real food in them, since real food is expensive). But they deliberately look the other way, all the time knowing that over time, these ersatz items will sicken the population (else, why the "vitamin fortified" designation?). So they work hand-in-hand with the pharma-giants, citing each other's "research" results and reports, swapping "experts," and generally acting like old married folks.
Diabetes, obesity, heart disease, hypertension, and other problems can be treated simply enough by just removing the flour and sugar from the daily diet. I know...your doctor will have a cat-fit and fall in it when he hears this, but since these diseases are most often induced by carb-loaded foods, restrictions on such foods in the diet will frequently reverse the progress of the diseases to the point where the sufferer will not require prescription medications.
But the drug companies don't want you to know this. And the food manufacturers are having a field day coming up with new "convenience foods" in nifty packaging- -convenience food that will eventually poison or starve test animals to death (if they can even be induced to eat it), after which the study/test results are twiddled with and manipulated, in case anybody decides they want to see what's in that box of Sugar-Whammies or that hermetically sealed package of soybean-based synthetic pig snout sausage they make taste so delicious with their chemicals, flavorings, and sugar.
So, this is where the pharmaceutical manufacturers come in: They get to make the drugs that treat the diseases that the fake foods will induce in the population over time. The only losers in this game are the vict...er, the customers who eat the stuff these guys market, and then have to get prescriptions for the drugs they need to treat the diseases caused by the fake food.
And a Fat Tax
When it looks like people are returning to a natural, historical diet in preference to the synthetic stuff on the shelves, the food/pharamgiants start cranking up their squealing mouthpieces (like Center for Science in the Public Interest and other diet-snoops). And, lo and behold, now they have come up with an idea to tax dietary fat. Amazing. Who would have thought it? I'm sure that if someone were to pursue this interesting upshot, they would learn that the sugar, grain, and seed oil companies, and the lobbyists and Congressmen from the states that produce these products, have dropped a few notes in CSPI's bank accounts to pay for their special kind of fearmongering. The CSPI has singlehandedly been responsible for more diet scares and food folderol than any one group in the country. And the government listens to them, then makes laws favoring CSPI's pronouncements, to the great detriment of the health of all Americans.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest is going to have to do a lot more homework into just where all that diabetes, heart disease, and obesity is really coming from, because it sure isn't the meat in the American diet (which, after all, has been cut to almost nothing--less than 10% of total calories, according to the "Pyramid").
Taxing the fat in a hamburger sounds like it makes sense, except that it isn't the fat in that hamburger that is dangerous. It's the sugary pop, and that god-awful white "bread" bun. And when they offer to supersize your order, they don't supersize the meat, they supersize the carbohydrates--the bread, potatoes, and pop.
But the busybodies have been informed that the meat must be the culprit, so they propose a tax on it. Ounce for ounce, natural meat is more nutritious than anything else in our diet, and it contains nutrients--like vitamin B-12--that cannot be made up from any plant foods, in spite of what the vegan "nutritionists" would try to have you believe. People who eat a diet with a large percentage of calories coming from meat and attached fats are invariably more healthy and generally live longer (is 85-100 longer than average?) than individuals who focus their dietary choices on fruits, grains and vegetables. The research has been done, the facts have been written down. And, still, these people persist in trying to convince the West that a low-fat, plant-heavy diet is the healthiest, when it is just the opposite, and research facts bear this out. So, just who is paying these people to say these things? (I'll let you puzzle on that one for a while...)
The food manufacturers can only manipulate meat just so far, and can only make a profit on the food if the meat is severely limited in the portions, but they can make all kinds of magic happen with their own (plant/chemical based) products--which they do--and they want people to buy lots and lots of it. So they pressure distributors to make the natural foods like meat, whole raw milk, eggs, and fresh creamery cream so expensive through taxation and regulation that only wealthy people will be able to afford them. Meanwhile, they keep the prices on their concoctions low, and, voila', instant profits.
(Think it's an accident that chicken and fish are so much "better for you" than beef and pork? Couldn't it be that beef and pork are so much more expensive than poultry and fish that the manufacturers can't get much of a profit out of the foods with sufficient meat in them? Might that not also explain why a beef pot pie has eight 1/2-inch cubes of meat in it, a quarter of a cup of vegetables, and a cup of starchy sauce? Naw. I'm imagining things again...)
The historical diet of humans has always depended largely on meat. Anthropologists can tell the difference between the bones of hunter-gatherers and agricultural cultures because the hunters' bones are always heavy, dense, and straight, while the bones of the farming cultures are frail and thin. Human guts, much shorter than a deer's, are not made to live on a diet of fiber and carbohydrates, but one of fats and meats. If human physiology was meant for a diet of fiber and carbohydrates, the insulin response after a sugary/starchy meal wouldn't be so drastic. But the body is not made to ingest large servings of these things over a long period of time. As young people, everything in our bodies works very well, but as we age, the insulin response, like all the other functions of the body, begin to falter and slow as we age. This explains the large number of people over the age of 50 who are diagnosed with Type II diabetes. The carbohydrate level in the U.S. diet has been increased from about 30% at the turn of the century to 65%. And the rate of diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, osteoporosis, and obesity has skyrocketed during the same period, on a closely-parallel curve. Any research that fails to take into account the historical facts regarding the American diet is faulty from the beginning.
At any rate, the drug manufacturers have a vested interest in keeping you on a false and worthless diet. As long as you eat what's on the grocers' shelves, you will continue to need the services of the doctors and pharmaceutical manufacturers. If you can't pay, and your Medicare helps you afford the drugs you need, who benefits?
If I, without a string of degrees, was able to make this connection, why is it so hard for others? Why do people allow the medical industry to dictate to them what they should eat?
No wonder there is such a clamor for a Medicare prescription drug subsidy: Poor people simply can't afford to keep the pharmaceutical companies in the manner to which they'd like to become accustomed. Having the subsidy attached to Medicare is a stroke of genius. The elderly know time is running out, and will pay almost anything for any compound that promises them a few extra months. That means that younger taxpayers are going to be paying for the prescription drugs of elderly rich people as well as the poor, since virtually everyone of a certain age is enrolled in Medicare.
As I have studied the different angles of this subject, something has become very clear to me: There appears to be a deliberate deception on the part of the food manufacturers, the pharmaceutical manufacturers, and to some extent, the medical industry. I wrote on this topic before in The Bottom Line, and to a lesser extent in other articles elsewhere on the website. I know that most of what I say here will be pooh-poohed, but, how will you find out these things if somebody doesn't tell you? I apologize for not having a string of initials after my name, but I am hoping that what you read here will inspire you to do your own research and find out the truth about the fatcats, the prescription drug subsidy, and the fat tax.