Sugar Should Be Regulated As Toxin, Researchers Say

reply to post by BBalazs


No -this isn't my high horse. This is the truth. There is absolutely not scintilla of evidence that smoking CAUSES lung cancer or that hfcs CAUSES diabetes.

But in both cases - a dollar figure has been developed purported to be a cost to the taxpayer in increased health care. A dollar figure that fully justifies taxing citizens to re-coup "costs".

The dollar figure makes the idea that HFCS CAUSES diabetes "real" - just like the dollar figure make the idea that smoking CAUSES lung cancer "real".

Now we know that smokers have been charged an arm and a leg in taxes. So this kind of statistical reasoning makes taxing of sugar inevitable without being discussed at all.

This is exactly how the marketing propaganda worked with smoking. This link will in fact demonstrate exactly how smoking is said to "CAUSE" 430,000 deaths per year. An idea that the public still does not realise that the 430,000 deaths are a theoretical construct. An idea that supported that charging of 20 billion dollar in "extra" costs to the taxpayer for the "psychological damage of premature deaths" - deaths that never actually occurred.

www.nycclash.com...

Tired of Control Freaks

Had a friend I worked with in an Herbalife business. We were always studying nutrition. He used to play in the NFL for a major football team. That's what started him researching nutrition. He did a study on sugar and disease and found that refined white sugar and diseases like cancer had a direct connection. We knew this back in the late 80's

To all the people who say it's not the white granulated sugar it's the artificial kind, i say - Wrong.

White, Brown sugars are very bad for you and they can cause obese conditions. The body doesn't digest them correctly and these sugars cause all kinds of health problems. However High Fructose Corn Syrup is even worse than refined sugars and it's now more than ever In Everything - that's why the jump in obesity is so noticeable.

I'm not letting the artificial stuff off the hook - that's bad for you too. Many of these do break the bodies ability to burn fat stevia and spenda included. Both of these may be less artificial then aspertame or nutrasweet but they are not all natural nature made and are not safe. All artificial sugars as well as refined sugars and High Fructose Corn Syrup cause lots of damage even brain damage and memory loss.

Safest sugars are all natural sugars that come in natures wrappers - fruit fresh from the tree. The body digest and processes these better than the rest but even they in high concentrations can be very harmful.

Best thing to do is learn to live without Any added sugars at all. Then when you need want something sweet natural foods will taste like they are super sweet without giving you sugar cravings which is a condition brought on by the addictiveness of all sugars.

Your kids with the twinkies need to go to rehab and the parents that give it to them need to get 5 to 10 in the slammer and the kid taken away for child abuse - that may seem extreme but it illustrates the seriousness of sugars addictive and harm on the child's body.. it's almost just as bad as giving kids illegal drugs.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by BBalazs

 

No -this isn't my high horse. This is the truth. There is absolutely not scintilla of evidence that smoking CAUSES lung cancer or that hfcs CAUSES diabetes.

But in both cases - a dollar figure has been developed purported to be a cost to the taxpayer in increased health care. A dollar figure that fully justifies taxing citizens to re-coup "costs".

The dollar figure makes the idea that HFCS CAUSES diabetes "real" - just like the dollar figure make the idea that smoking CAUSES lung cancer "real".

Now we know that smokers have been charged an arm and a leg in taxes. So this kind of statistical reasoning makes taxing of sugar inevitable without being discussed at all.

This is exactly how the marketing propaganda worked with smoking. This link will in fact demonstrate exactly how smoking is said to "CAUSE" 430,000 deaths per year. An idea that the public still does not realise that the 430,000 deaths are a theoretical construct. An idea that supported that charging of 20 billion dollar in "extra" costs to the taxpayer for the "psychological damage of premature deaths" - deaths that never actually occurred.

www.nycclash.com...

Tired of Control Freaks

I agree with you.
Now the trap has been set.
So what do you think causes these issues?
let me guess genetic inheritance.
WRONG.
but tell me, your high horse argument.

CANCER is a self defense mechanism of the body.
What is it fighting wise guy?

ohh, and I am totally against regulation, reread my posts.
Corn subsidies should also be stopped though. its only fair.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by BBalazs

 

No -this isn't my high horse. This is the truth. There is absolutely not scintilla of evidence that smoking CAUSES lung cancer or that hfcs CAUSES diabetes.

But in both cases - a dollar figure has been developed purported to be a cost to the taxpayer in increased health care. A dollar figure that fully justifies taxing citizens to re-coup "costs".

The dollar figure makes the idea that HFCS CAUSES diabetes "real" - just like the dollar figure make the idea that smoking CAUSES lung cancer "real".

Now we know that smokers have been charged an arm and a leg in taxes. So this kind of statistical reasoning makes taxing of sugar inevitable without being discussed at all.

This is exactly how the marketing propaganda worked with smoking. This link will in fact demonstrate exactly how smoking is said to "CAUSE" 430,000 deaths per year. An idea that the public still does not realise that the 430,000 deaths are a theoretical construct. An idea that supported that charging of 20 billion dollar in "extra" costs to the taxpayer for the "psychological damage of premature deaths" - deaths that never actually occurred.

www.nycclash.com...

Tired of Control Freaks

I know this is a sugar thread but i cannot leave this alone. Mods, if you must delete my post and the above post for being OT, I will understand.

Dude.. you quoting some dudes experience from 1992 and supposedly that data was based on a book from 1980. Do you realize your hanging your argument on 22 year old information?

Today we know a little more about smoking than we did in 1980. We know that cigarette smoke contains over 4000 chemicals - many of which we have no idea what effect they have on the body. We know that there are 69 carcinogens (cancer causing agents) known to the state of California at least in cigarette smoke. We know there are an extra added 599 chemicals not naturally found in tobacco that the tobacco companies use in processing of tobacco. They have to cure tobacco with chemicals in 3 days where otherwise it would take over a month. Most of these 599 chemicals are toxic poisons like formaldehyde and ammonia This isn't made up - this is admitted by the tobacco companies themselves.

We know what happens to the body when one stops smoking. The body if generally in good enough health at the time, will begin to in time reverse these toxic conditions brought on by cigarette smoke. We have studies galore that were never done in 1992 on all types of tobacco and how they effect the body.

I used to smoke. Now I use an electronic cigarette. It gives off no smoke. My doctor says by body is healing at the rate of a person who quit cold turkey. It's the Smoke and chemical products of tobacco combustion that kills. This is a provable fact today. Do some serious research and please don't trust your life on some guys musings in 1992.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

 

No - I didn't not ask for generic studies and suppositions. You stated that HFCS CAUSES diabetes. Please provide the names of 3 people who developed diabetes as a direct consequence of HFCS.

What does diabetes caused by HFCS look like and how is it different than diabetes caused by genetics? By what biological pathway does this disease occur?

Don't give me epidimiology with studies that "suggest" that there may be a "link" and a possible "association"and opinions. Give me the names of 3 people who have diabetes as a direct result of HFCS and how it is known that this specific case of diabetes is different from other cases of diabetes so that we will know that HFCS caused those 3 specific cases of diabetes.

Tired of Control Freaks

The video "Children of the Corn Syrup" goes through detailed case studies of children with diabetes from HFCS. They are patients of the doctor giving the lecture -- which is the video tape.

He shows their photos and describe their cases.

So he treats thousands of kids with diabetes from obesity from HFCS.



These are case studies -- not epidemological studies.

Dr. Stephen W. Ponder , MD, FAAP, CDE is the director of the Childrens Diabetes and Endocrine Center of South Texas at Driscoll Children's Hospital. Dr. Ponder delivered his presentation on children and obesity, "Children of the Corn Syrup," as part of the Friday Science Lecture Series at Del Mar College on March 7, 2008.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong


The children are obese - agreed. Did you know that when the body is in a pre-diabetic state there is free-floating unused insulin in the blood stream that CAUSES fat to be stored on the belly. So are kids fat because of HFCS or because they ate too many calories or because there is a genetic cause of diabetes in the family.

You quoted a dollar figure of the cost of HFCS on the health care system. How was that dollar figure developed when it isn't even proven the HFCS CAUSES diabetes?

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


calories?
you can't be serious.
anyway answer my previous post.
you have set your own trap, now walk into it.
hfcs as a trigger for diabetes is much less of a dogma then your calorie myth.
figth the good figth or prepare to be shamefully debunked, if you answer my previous post.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

 

The children are obese - agreed. Did you know that when the body is in a pre-diabetic state there is free-floating unused insulin in the blood stream that CAUSES fat to be stored on the belly. So are kids fat because of HFCS or because they ate too many calories or because there is a genetic cause of diabetes in the family.

You quoted a dollar figure of the cost of HFCS on the health care system. How was that dollar figure developed when it isn't even proven the HFCS CAUSES diabetes?

Tired of Control Freaks

Dr. Stephen Ponder is the man you want to turn to for the answers to your questions.

Obviously I can't force you to watch the lecture. haha.

Willful ignorance is not the best strategy to answer questions -- good luck though.

I will repeat -- watch the lecture and he answers your questions.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


I will stop quoting the 22 year SAMMEC figures when the anti-smoking zealots stop telling the public that smoking kills 430,000 per year.

Note both the date of the following article and the 7th paragraph

www.cspnet.com...

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by BBalazs


BBALAZS

Cancer is a self-defense mechanism of the body?

What CAUSES cancer - well there are some proven causes of cancer - like the HPV viruses that causes cervical cancer, oral, and oesophogeal cancer as well as lung cancer. Asbestos CAUSES a type of cancer. Benezene CAUSES leukemia in children.

But other than some few examples - I do not believe that the CAUSES of cancer are known. The only thing that is known for sure is that the older an individual gets - the greater the risk of cancer. For all I know, cancer is simply nature's way of telling an individual that it is time to get off the planet.

Here is what I do know for certain. Epidimiology is a soft branch of science that seeks to identify potential areas for further scientific research by finding correlations. But CORRELATION is NOT CAUSATION. Unless science can find the biological pathway that connects A to B, a correlation could be nothing more than an artifact of sampling.

And by the way - I agree that the government should STOP funding hfcs. The only reason it is used in everything by manufacturer's is because it is so cheap.

But I disagree that government has any business in the private lives of citizens and food in any form should not be taxed.

I recent rent-seeking charities, funded by governments and Big Pharma, who seek to mold public discussion by presenting false facts - like taking a correlation and pretending that it really causes a disease and then to support that contention - coming up with a fake dollar figure.

Tired of Control freaks

reply to post by fulllotusqigong


Fullotusgigong

I can go to a cancer ward, point to a lung cancer patient who smokes and say "see smoking CAUSES lung cancer". But I would be lying because the CAUSE of any specific case of lung cancer is UNKNOWN.

Your doctor took a bunch of fat kids, pointed to them and said "see HFCS CAUSES obesity". But since the CAUSES of obesity are poorly understood and since it is not possible to determine if the kid is fat because of genetics, over-feeding, lack of excise, hormonal disorders etc etc etc., your doctor is LYING!

Tired of Control Freaks

To all:

The point of the original post was that there was an opinion peace suggesting sugar should be taxed as toxin.

Not whether sugar was good or bad - not to discuss the merits of natural sugars vs refined sugars vs HFCS or fake sugars but whether or not the government should regulate the private behavior of citizens in relation to what we can eat or can't.

This is all part of the anti-obesity campaign. The purpose of the campaign is NOT health. Its MONEY. The government is desparately looking for new sources of funding. Raising general taxes on everyone is unacceptable politically. The purpose of the anti-smoking campaign is to target fat people to have their wallets opened to the government.

This is what I am trying to point out to everyone and it is the point that everyone refuses to consider. Should we as a society, target certain groups of people (fat people, people who drink, people who smoke,) for financial rape?

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


that was not the question.nice dodge. i guess you can bow out and save face.
also i never said anything about what causes cancer. nice bait and switch.
all i said it is a self defense mechanism which you yourself pointed out.
so no answer.
i suspected that much.
i don't fully agree that this is a tex.
the corn subsidy is a tax.
and events like these should be used to educate the masses.
you are quite aware, yet fight for the wrong side.
why?
your are also a hypocrite.
the government is already in the business of controlling food supply. do you deny that too?

don't bother answering that.
if you do answer anything, answer my original question.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

I will stop quoting the 22 year SAMMEC figures when the anti-smoking zealots stop telling the public that smoking kills 430,000 per year.

Note both the date of the following article and the 7th paragraph

www.cspnet.com...

Tired of Control Freaks

So what? So the numbers may be a tad off.. no big deal. My problem with your post was this statement,

There is absolutely not scintilla of evidence that smoking CAUSES lung cancer

The lawyers and the FDA and the Tobacco industry do this all the time. It's a game they play because none of them actually want people to quit smoking. Just like none of them want to find a cure for cancer. ( there have been many proven cures for cancer going back years) If there was no smoking, there would be no multi billion dollar a year pharmaceutical based quit smoking product industry. This article is about how much the tobacco companies can get away with, not about the number of lives smoking takes each year.

The point is we do know how smoke and why smoke from cigarettes causes lung cancer. We know the effects of smoke on the lungs and the effects over time. We know how the body reacts to this particulate matter and the effect the chemical carcinogens have on lung tissue. Simply put, your statement above doesn't have a leg to stand on. Basing that statement on old outdated information is not a wise idea if your using it to prove such a point.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


JohnPhoenix

We can take this to another thread, if you like

Please provide the evidence that smoking CAUSES lung cancer. I have been researching the topic for 6 years now and would love to see it.

Tired of Control Freaks

JohnPhoenix

I don't know how to post a new thread but please do so yourself. Entitle it "SMOKING CAUSES LUNG CANCER AND HERE IS THE PROOF"

We can continue the discussion there

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

 

Fullotusgigong

I can go to a cancer ward, point to a lung cancer patient who smokes and say "see smoking CAUSES lung cancer". But I would be lying because the CAUSE of any specific case of lung cancer is UNKNOWN.

Your doctor took a bunch of fat kids, pointed to them and said "see HFCS CAUSES obesity". But since the CAUSES of obesity are poorly understood and since it is not possible to determine if the kid is fat because of genetics, over-feeding, lack of excise, hormonal disorders etc etc etc., your doctor is LYING!

Tired of Control Freaks

Since you seem to refuse to watch the lecture I'll help you out. A summary:

genetics loads the gun and the environment pulls the trigger

Whether it's obesity or diabetes -- both are outcomes of

"one common pathway" -- the mouth.

That's what Dr. Stephen Ponder states. He treats thousands of kids with diabetes and he says their case study profile is that soda is their main calorie source.

So he goes into a genetic defect that will cause morbid obesity for about 5% of people who are morbidly obese.

Then he goes into diet and the feedback cycle of how insulin competes with leptin -- so that he eats extra fat to trigger the leptin in the brain to stop eating. So it's a positive feedback cycle -- more and more fat is needed to trigger the leptin.

Our environment really predisposes us to get the food we really don't need

Nutritional blindspots -- "snacks don't count"

Portion sizes are out of control.

20 ounce soda pop started in 1993 as the new norm.

Then he says how one third of children hospitals have fast food restaurants.

Then he says how what is "normal" is now considered too skinny.

Then he says in 2006 the results came out that if you're overweight statistically you are unhealthy.

The average kid is getting 1220 calories a day for 1 to 2 year olds whereas the caloric requirement is 950 calories a day.

We are over-feeding kids folks, right and left.

Then he gives a nutritional IQ quiz -- as he pointed out people think clear soda has less calories than dark soda. Nope.

Also "no sugar added" --

Don't be sucked in by that one.

No sugar added is another FDA lie -- since only sucrose is considered sugar, not HFCS.

Then he says if you drink one less soda a day you lose 16 pounds in a year -- no exercise needed.

The average kid is seeing 40,000 food ads a year on t.v.

What we're seeing now is a lot of grazing behavior in a lot of children

Don't drink the regular sodas.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

there is no proof.
however there is more then likely to be proof in the future with the untangling of junk dna.
also, there is a very high correlation, which should and cannot be discounted.
but there is no evidence as such. there is lot of circumstantial evidence.
you are mixing the subject, and getting of topic.
smoking is not healthy.
this is a fact.
why embrace and defend the unhealthy?
you are now on the side of the ridiculous.

reply to post by BBalazs


BBALAZS

I don't know what question you asked me that I have not answered.

Tired of Control freaks

reply to post by BBalazs


If you wish to discuss epidimiology further - then please start a new thread.

The idea of healthy lifestyles vs unhealthy lifestyles is a very very tricky notion with little support. I would be happy to discuss that with you as well but start a new thread.

This thread is about the government using marketing and propaganda to target a group of citizens for denormalization and financial rape.

Tired of Control freaks