How did we get so casual about conspiracy theories?

I was talking with someone today about nutrition. This person has a PhD in material science. They mentioned eating beef daily and I asked about the cholesterol implications. The answer was about a vague ‘they’ wanted us to think that, but it wasn’t true anymore.

I hear the vague ‘they’ so frequently now it’s just a normal conversation. In truth, as soon as I hear the vague they I dismiss the speaker’s credibility on the subject, but how did we get here? Vague they wanted us to think X is a valid counter argument by the most highly educated people in our society?

This sounds like more of a rant than a question, but I do truly want to know how this happened? Was it pop culture like the X Files that made conspiracy theories main stream? Was it social media? When will the vague they stop being an accepted explanation? Has it always been this way and I didn’t notice?

Thanks, love you!

  • jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
    1·
    14 hours ago

    Extremely well written! Thank you for putting that together

    Eating lots of meat isn’t a problem for cholesterol

    There is a group of people, the LMHR (lean mass hyper responders) who do have highly elevated cholesterol on very keto/carnivore diets.

    The outstanding question is if cholesterol is actually harmful in of itself - the data I’ve seen indicates that it isn’t harmful.

    • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
      2·
      13 hours ago

      True, but our overall guidelines should not cater to exceptions and apply those specific needs to humanity as a whole.

      Cholesterol is a broad term and doesn’t address the specifics necessary to addr iness overall average health for an individual. We do love our neat boxes to put things in.

      Then there is the whole “sugar” issue. There are dozens of sugars and we only associate the term with fructose or sucrose. We can technically name all sorts of things as sugars, but if it doesn’t include sucrose and fructose explicitly, then it “isn’t” sugar on the label.

      • jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
        1·
        13 hours ago

        Cholesterol is a broad term and doesn’t address the specifics necessary to addr iness overall average health for an individual.

        I agree completely, people should not be trying to treat a cholesterol number. They should be optimizing their metabolic health. Cholesterol should be an indicator that further follow-up is required, either arterial imaging, or diet and lifestyle interventions

        Then there is the whole “sugar” issue. There are dozens of sugars and we only associate the term with fructose or sucrose. We can technically name all sorts of things as sugars, but if it doesn’t include sucrose and fructose explicitly, then it “isn’t” sugar on the label.

        Happily, all of those sugars do get included in the carbohydrate label on packaging. I would say dietary carbohydrates are the biggest culprit in cardiovascular disease, and that’s what people should focus on instead of cholesterol.