I would bet most researchers have good intentions. However, it is very difficult to see things that your own salary requires you not to see. If your paycheck depends on researching how drugs impact diabetes, it doesn't matter how much you believe in diet as a method of control, your research will reflect drugs. When the USDA bought into the low fat dogma in the early 80s, suddenly all research dollars went to people who would perform studies showing how bad fat was. People who disagreed were black-balled.

On the topic of other countries, it is interesting. France has largely kept its traditional diet (which is incredibly high in saturated fat), but almost all of the English speaking world has followed the US into a high-sugar, low-fat, grain-based, heart-unhealthy diet, whether grain is a primary agricultural product of that country or not.

In the end, I don't think it is all about money. Some of it is pure obtuseness. A recent 125 page report detailed the effects of salt consumption on health risk. It showed a significant increase in risk as salt consumption dropped below 2300mg/day. The Institute of Medicine has changed its recommendation as a result, but the AHA has decided 1500mg is still the right target for everybody. This is not a result of a financial agreement; instead, it seems to be more a result of an unwillingness to admit they were wrong. That's a powerful pull, because once there is a crack in the exterior, the whole wall may crumble.

In the end, I could be wrong. I'm making deductions based on appearances and behaviors coupled with the massive funds (millions and millions of dollars) being funneled into these organizations. I'm sure the researchers sitting in the labs are doing the best they can within a set of constraints dictated by the funding organizations.

On the diabetesjournals.org article, my comment would be two-fold:

First, observational studies are shit. You cannot make conclusions from them the vast majority of the time. It was smoking that brought those studies into vogue, where relative risks were in the range of 2000% to 10000% (compare that to 25% in diet studies) and absolute risks were in 20-40% (compare that to maybe 1.5% in a "highly successful" diet study).

Second, I'll leave this[1] reference. Dr. Richarch Feinman came to nutrition after teaching biochemistry in medical school. The biochemistry was so abundantly clear that he was shocked when he found out the orthodox position in nutrition is almost diametrically opposed to the biochemistry. Diabetes is a disease of carbohydrate intolerance, recommending 6-11 servings of carbohydrates a day is silly.

Now, what is missing is the causal link between over-consumption of carbohydrates and diabetes. My own hypothesis is that there are a few components: a genetic component that defines maximum tolerance and a dietary component influenced by certain foods that tend to put the body into an inflammatory state.

If one is healthy, I think one can eat just about any real food diet and remain healthy, whether paleo, low carb, Mediterranean or ovo-lacto vegetarian (vegan requires supplementation, so I can't include it in the list). If, on the other hand, one has a damaged body from eating too many not-quite-food products, the equation shifts and looks much more like what treating Type 2 diabetes looks like.

1. http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(14)00332-3/f...