On Saturday, Kim Hill interviewed Caldwell Esselstyn, a cardiology surgeon who has "seen the light" with regard to nutrition, and who is in New Zealand to spread the message. One which, in this interview, he readily admits his colleagues won't accept. After all, cardiovascular events are the biggest problem in developed countries, and who out of the hundreds of thousands of cardiologists wants to be out of a job?, The companies that manufacture statins, or the medical equipment used by cardiologists wouldn't be happy either, because cardiology is such a large part of medicine.The logical extension of what he did say, is that the bottom would drop out New Zealand's polypill dream, as well as lots of medical companies, particularly those wanting to put every man woman and child in statins from cradle to grave - if doctors listened to him.
Not only that, but the bottom would drop out of the NZ agriculture sector. Do I agree with Esselstyn? Yes, and no. Some of the emails sent into Kim Hill hit the nail on the head, and that is that Esselstyn, and the other person he champions, Colin Campbell have both selectively missed a key point in both their books, which I have read, and that is that the products they decry are bad WHEN they are mangled in the way the system decrees.
There is nothing wrong with milk, butter and cheese WHEN it's not pasteurised. They miss the fact that some of the healthiest indigenous societies, before white man's white flour and white sugar were the inuits who lived on various raw sea based proteins, dried salmon, moose and other animals, and berries in the summer. Even the aborigines in Australia constantly say that before the white man came with their denatured food, alcohol and cigarettes, they never had the sicknesses they have now, in their communities, And their society's nutrition was not plant based. Neither is the Masai diet based on milk, meat and blood, all no-nos to Esselstyn. Do they have heart disease? No.
Is what Esselstyn is advocating wrong? Not really. He's pretty much a Pritikin revived. In other words, the other end of the pendulum from where the Standard Advocated Diet is now. The fact is that for people with heart disease, what he advocates works to correct a problem. What Pritikin advocated, worked as well. But is it actually THE answer? Both Esselstyn and Campbell were not only selective, but myopic. For instance, why not study the Tamysh, in Georgia, who used to have an average age of 120, with people living up to 160 years old? Why not ask the questions as to why these people not only never had strokes, heart attacks, arthritis, or auto-immune disease (personal email from Professor Kipshidze). Why not ask the question as to how come these people were still hunting, riding horses, and yes, fighting, at the ages of 120? Why not look at their diet?
Esselstyn's diet is heavily bean and grain based, which ignores the fact that there is a huge group out there, who can't handle either beans or grains. A really good place to start to analyse what will work for you is this book called "Trace your Genes to Health". Everyone is different and there is no one complete answer, for everyone on this earth. That's the key. Work out what your chink in the armour is, and then close out the chink.
To look at the Tamysh, or advocate an individual approach to this problem would soon reveal the holes in both Caldwell and Esselstyn's theories. There is no one right way.
However, I bet you this. If every New Zealanders took Esselstyn seriously, and followed his programme, shortcomings and all - within a year, the medical profession would be out of business and in receivership.
And that's where, as Esselstyn admitted,... vested interests comes in, because you have to justify your job by having sick people to look after. Anything that eliminates sick people, eliminates those who make a living off people being sick.
Whenever any "truth" or part truth, has a financial downside, it has to either be denied outright, or by saying nothing. Or protected by an army of lies.
Which brings me to Asbestos. You all know that asbestos is dangerous and causes cancers, right?
You'd think. The asbestos industry, just like the smoking and drinking industry, say that their products don't cause problems.Read this series on how the asbestos industry constantly makes sure their clouds are lined with gold, and then let's talk about the pervasive world-wide propaganda which also protects much of mainstream medicine - including the unjustifiable use of paracetamol, and the constant denial that any vaccine can cause any harm, and that people who refuse to vaccinate their children are the criminals of the world who will be the cause of deaths in vaccinated children (logic anyone?)
This is all about voices and choices.
Once people understand that anyone with vested interests will fiercely protect their patch, that frees you up to go and research issues without preconceived ideas.
It would be wonderful if the education system of this world would also teach really meaningful, life-sustaining information to students about nutrition and lifestyle, but that isn't going to happen, so long as education is defined by a raft of business interests who view it solely with an eye to how they can use people coming out the other end of the education "system".
The old-fashioned idea of studying the truth for the intrinsic value attached to truth, long since went out with the Ark.
