There was a time in the 1950s and 1960s when smoking cigarettes was in vogue. Tobacco companies once influenced the media by fueling corporate coffers with television commercials and magazine advertisements promising sexual fulfillment for those who smoked cigarettes.
Beautiful models would be seen in magnificent landscapes enjoying romantic interludes while smoking one manufacturer's brand or another. Some people thought that it would be KOOL to stand by a cascading waterfall on a hot day while readying oneself to walk a mile for a CAMEL or ride through the west like the rugged MARLBORO Man (who developed lung cancer).
The most amazing part of our physically induced love affair with that addictive substance, nicotine, (which binds to the median forebrain bundle of the brain's hypothalamus, the same place heroin binds to), was that one cigarette company boasted in their ads: "Four out of five doctors recommend..." their brand.
You would be challenged to find one American doctor
recommending cigarettes in 2012, but sixty years
earlier, doctors puffed away and found nothing
wrong with their patients doing the same. Of course,
a few health fanatics and activists warned against
the dangers of cigarette smoking, but the doctors
had the final say, dismissing such claims because
they were not taught in medical school that cigarette
smoking was dangerous. In fact, cigarette companies
lobbied doctors with an information overdose of
biased studies supporting health benefits from
smoking. There was no opposite viewpoint for
physicians to consider, so their minds were made up by clever marketing.
Is milk support any different today than cigarette support was in the past?
Much the same way that the dairy industry has operated
in the sixties, seventies, eighties, nineties, and now
in the twenty-first century, clueless medical doctors
promote something which causes illness.
Most doctors recommend milk and dairy products to
their patients because they know no better. They
are not taught the adverse effects from ice cream
and cheese consumption in medical school. Once they
graduate and get their medical degrees, these new
physicians become targets for dairy marketers.
Is this my opinion, or is this fact?
The following appeared in the January 10, 1996 issue
of Hoard's Dairyman, the national dairy farm magazine.
A page 38 article (volume 141, number 1) revealed the
sinister dairy industry strategy:
Improved nutrition training for doctors is the goal of a $500,000 grant to the University of Iowa College of Medicine. Midland Dairy Association put up $250,000; $125,000 came form the Iowa Beef Industry Council and the Iowa Pork Producers. The central component of the new program will be a nutrition professorship within the college's department of preventive medicine and environmental health.
Multiply this factor by the number of medical schools
in America. Multiply this by the thousands of new
doctors of our generation, and the millions of new
patients who will receive bias dairy-funded advice.
Hopefully, the patients will seek second opinions
from alternative care physicians after the failures of their primary care physicians betray their own health interests.
Hoard's quotes Mary Thorsell, vice president of nutrition for Midland Dairy Association:
Our purpose in providing these funds is to enable the college to train medical students, residents, practicing physicians and allied health care professionals so that they can counsel their patients in healthy eating habits.
Uh, huh. Ice cream, pizza, pork, beef, saturated fat, cholesterol, powerful growth hormones, and antibiotics. The recipe for increased cash flow for new physicians enabling them to pay for outrageous insurance coverage...for their own ignorance and for their inexcusable malpractice.