General Discussion

drm604

(16,230 posts)

65. Good post.

Tue Apr 26, 2016, 04:20 PM

Apr 2016

If I tell people that "big pharma" isn't lying about vaccines, or that genetic modification isn't inherently bad, or that some amount of pesticides are needed to be able to feed the billions of people on this planet I get called a corporate shill when I'm anything but that.

There's plenty of things wrong with the way corporations operate. Big ag is doing terrible things with the way they feed antibiotics to livestock. Infectious bacteria are becoming more and more resistant to even our most powerful antibiotics because of it. And the manufacturers of soap products that contain unnecessary antibacterials add to the problem.

Big pharma abuses the patent system, and they spend millions convincing people to pester their doctors for prescriptions. Don't get me started on the horribly unethical and immoral Opdivo ads.

Do I even need to mention Wall street and the big banks? Do I even need to mention the way corporations dodge taxes?

Just because you and I don't buy into every single criticism doesn't mean that we think corporations are all peaches and cream.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

404 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Fructose and HFCS: Once again the "skeptics"* are wrong. [View all] TalkingDog Apr 2016 OP

Uh-oh. Monsanto's trolls will be on you like mold on lagomorph777 Apr 2016 #1

LOL! SkyDaddy7 Apr 2016 #29

Boy, were you right! jomin41 Apr 2016 #30

So you're saying those who corrected the OP's errors are "Monsanto's trolls?" HuckleB Apr 2016 #32

If the brown hiking boot fits... jomin41 Apr 2016 #84

So supporting your claims is not your thing. HuckleB Apr 2016 #107

You certainly are. JackRiddler Apr 2016 #282

I go with science. HuckleB Apr 2016 #289

Yeah yeah, "science." JackRiddler Apr 2016 #316

No, I look at the actual evidence. HuckleB Apr 2016 #317

Yeah, yeah, "evidence." JackRiddler Apr 2016 #318

Shiva is a scam artist, of the worst kind. HuckleB Apr 2016 #319

You repeat the same lie over and over and think you win. JackRiddler Apr 2016 #323

You refuse to acknowledge the evidence. HuckleB Apr 2016 #325

And if he is not nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #346

Yea, you've shown that laughing is all you can do. HuckleB Apr 2016 #348

Too bad your FUD does not work either huh? nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #349

Too bad your pointless, obsessively repeated accusations are false. HuckleB Apr 2016 #350

Mirror. Use it nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #351

I have for years. You should try it. HuckleB Apr 2016 #352

Same comment with lead nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #356

Nice socks. HuckleB Apr 2016 #357

Bamboo, renewable and comfy as hell nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #359

The googly eyes are a nice addition. HuckleB Apr 2016 #360

LMAO nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #363

Derp. HuckleB Apr 2016 #364

Thanks Jack R. I Know it remains a Sissyphian task to try and truedelphi Apr 2016 #331

ROFLMAO! HuckleB Apr 2016 #333

All that rolling on the floor you are doing womanofthehills Apr 2016 #371

Did someone give you Generic Other May 2016 #385

Derp. HuckleB May 2016 #392

"Derp" pretty much summarizes most of your posts,eh? Generic Other May 2016 #395

Cute. HuckleB May 2016 #399

+1,000,000. Thank dog somebody came right out and said it. It couldn't be more obvious. GoneFishin Apr 2016 #302

It's obvious that you can't discuss the issues. HuckleB Apr 2016 #308

And you make a ludicrous personal attack and run. HuckleB Apr 2016 #309

Yes, I see them now, below... sense Apr 2016 #31

People who correct bad claims are "bullies?" HuckleB Apr 2016 #34

Uhm, none of us said any of those things in the posts below, yet we are called bullies why you... Humanist_Activist Apr 2016 #56

I can't understand how some of them are allowed to run the Health Forum womanofthehills Apr 2016 #368

Honesty is not mean. HuckleB Apr 2016 #374

Stuns me as well. sense May 2016 #398

You expect a progressive site to support scam artists? HuckleB May 2016 #401

Proving my point that they do. sense May 2016 #402

Wrong answer. HuckleB May 2016 #403

It is inevitable as the sunrise. They're just doing their job. Zorra Apr 2016 #229

Anti-GMO activists are the ones practicing “tobacco science”. HuckleB Apr 2016 #245

The tobacco guys had evidence. Epidemiological. immoderate Apr 2016 #336

So you have nothing but fictions to offer? HuckleB Apr 2016 #337

I'm pointing to what your source said. I make up nothing. immoderate Apr 2016 #345

In other words, evidence is meaningless to you. HuckleB Apr 2016 #347

Meaningless evidence is, indeed, meaningless to me. immoderate Apr 2016 #353

And you confess that fictions are your thing, yet again. HuckleB Apr 2016 #354

You put the words right into my mouth! immoderate Apr 2016 #355

When's your novel being released? HuckleB Apr 2016 #358

Always felt those were bad for us, stopped buying anything with them in it years ago. djean111 Apr 2016 #2

If you eat no sugar, you will have no energy to power things like muscle movement. Maedhros Apr 2016 #332

I have got that covered when I eat fruit. djean111 Apr 2016 #335

And plenty of fructose in fruit, too! HuckleB Apr 2016 #338

ALMOST everything with HFCS has MSG as well. truedelphi Apr 2016 #339

I was responding to "we don't need to eat [sugar] at all." Maedhros Apr 2016 #340

Links to support your fictions about MSG? HuckleB Apr 2016 #344

Do your own research. truedelphi Apr 2016 #366

Another BS claim bites the dust. HuckleB Apr 2016 #367

Organic fruits and vegetables always have a 5 digit sticker code beginning with 9 womanofthehills Apr 2016 #369

Why are you promoting the organic marketing scam? HuckleB Apr 2016 #375

Don't eat eight, nine is fine Generic Other May 2016 #386

Bad link. CurtEastPoint Apr 2016 #3

Thanks. Fixed it. Copy/Cut/Paste error. n/t TalkingDog Apr 2016 #7

I'm not familiar with this debate. Why the focus on fructose in HFCS? Buzz Clik Apr 2016 #4

I think because HFCS is in EVERYTHING. TalkingDog Apr 2016 #6

I see. It's not a comparison to glucose. Buzz Clik Apr 2016 #8

Indeed. Sugars weren't compared, the N is too small, & the study itself is at odds with the article. HuckleB Apr 2016 #10

Yep, just more click bait intended for the consumption of those who have no idea what sugar is Major Nikon Apr 2016 #12

But, but them durned "SKEPTICS"* are WRONG! Dang nabbit! HuckleB Apr 2016 #13

Princeton Univefrsity is "click bait"? puffy socks Apr 2016 #277

Name that logical fallacy. HuckleB Apr 2016 #287

Ah a real logical fallacy. puffy socks Apr 2016 #324

So, you have no idea what to say when you're propaganda is debunked. HuckleB Apr 2016 #326

You havent debunked it. nt puffy socks Apr 2016 #328

I did. Your denial doesn't change that. HuckleB Apr 2016 #330

Always spend time exploring before posting things that confirm your preconceptions. HuckleB Apr 2016 #320

I see, only your sources are the correct ones. puffy socks Apr 2016 #327

I see you can't accept that the study was clearly debunked. HuckleB Apr 2016 #329

Good point... awoke_in_2003 Apr 2016 #98

Also because this crud is manufactured from GMO corn grown in fields of glyphosate AxionExcel Apr 2016 #23

Yes. Trolls. Indydem Apr 2016 #25

Some have even been given a pizza for the trouble, yet live on as zombies Major Nikon Apr 2016 #163

but accoridng to other people, glyphosate is perfectly safe and chemicals used on organic foods are Fast Walker 52 Apr 2016 #33

glyphosate is actually safe, particularly in the levels found in food, are you saying there's... Humanist_Activist Apr 2016 #58

surely you admit glyphosate has some toxicity to people? Fast Walker 52 Apr 2016 #62

For perspective. HuckleB Apr 2016 #66

Of course, but that level is so low as to be practically irrelevant from a product safety... Humanist_Activist Apr 2016 #103

True. It's relatively safer compared to things like table salt Major Nikon Apr 2016 #164

World Health Organization Won’t Back Down From Study Linking Monsanto to Cancer womanofthehills Apr 2016 #115

HFCS & glyphosate residue are a freaken fugly Corporate Combo, Inc. (R) AxionExcel Apr 2016 #133

You're using a conspiracy theory loving source. HuckleB Apr 2016 #137

The EU says the IARC is full of shit as do 3 out of 4 WHO programs Major Nikon Apr 2016 #167

yup. HuckleB Apr 2016 #169

Duh! - So you go with the Guidelines for Drinking water people over womanofthehills Apr 2016 #175

So you just make crap up. HuckleB Apr 2016 #182

Just reading the chart HuckleB womanofthehills Apr 2016 #198

You are just making things up, as usual. HuckleB Apr 2016 #209

You do understand what "Guidelines" means, yes? Major Nikon Apr 2016 #214

3 out of 4 WHO programs agree on glyphosate safety Major Nikon Apr 2016 #166

FDA will begin testing food for glyphosate!!! It's about time!! womanofthehills Apr 2016 #176

3 out of 4 who programs are arikara Apr 2016 #180

Links? HuckleB Apr 2016 #183

Sure, along with every regulatory agency in the first world Major Nikon Apr 2016 #215

If it is so safe, why is the FDA going to start testing levels in our food womanofthehills Apr 2016 #189

The FDA is about to test the levels of glyphosate in food womanofthehills Apr 2016 #196

Really, apparently Australia conducted a study years ago... Humanist_Activist Apr 2016 #205

The government??? FDA is a joke in this matter!! - good for the Government Accountability Office!! womanofthehills Apr 2016 #248

Jeebus! merrily Apr 2016 #5

"The brain and the body are deficient in the machinery to make DHA; it has to come through our diet" Jim__ Apr 2016 #9

That's not what your link says Major Nikon Apr 2016 #11

beet sugar -fructose , GMO's and glyphosate womanofthehills Apr 2016 #188

Baseless fear mongering, like On Fox. HuckleB Apr 2016 #212

Your probably right - the sugar cane is probably GMO free but loaded with glysphate womanofthehills Apr 2016 #249

Thanks for showing us that you don't understand the topic at all, yet again. HuckleB Apr 2016 #250

Well thats just silly, sugar is refined to the point where there are no chemical differences.... Humanist_Activist Apr 2016 #266

Buying organic can keep the rivers and lakes from being even more polluted womanofthehills Apr 2016 #278

Why would that be scary, and is that even true? In addition, organic isn't better for the... Humanist_Activist Apr 2016 #293

Wow! you and HuckleB make a great team - talk exactly alike - maybe you are the same person womanofthehills May 2016 #381

How are the "skeptics" wrong? -nt Bradical79 Apr 2016 #14

They need to add a sucrose and a glucose arm sharp_stick Apr 2016 #15

^^^^this^^^^ mopinko Apr 2016 #17

Oh no, Monsanto would be proud womanofthehills May 2016 #382

And many more rats. HuckleB Apr 2016 #19

I'm really starting to wonder PasadenaTrudy Apr 2016 #43

It's scary to see people work so hard to maintain mistaken beliefs. HuckleB Apr 2016 #44

It's not *that* scary. ronnie624 Apr 2016 #55

There's a girl in Idaho who needs a heart and lung transplant because... Humanist_Activist Apr 2016 #57

That's very sad, ronnie624 Apr 2016 #63

It's belief in pseudoscience that makes it difficult to deal with climate change. HuckleB Apr 2016 #59

It's scary to see people who think putting pesticides in our bodies is a good thing womanofthehills Apr 2016 #116

Plants make their own pesticides skepticscott Apr 2016 #125

I don't think plants make organophosphates womanofthehills Apr 2016 #341

Organic pesticides are not safer. HuckleB Apr 2016 #128

Organic pesticides are safer - traditional farming uses organophostphate pesticides womanofthehills Apr 2016 #276

Not even close. And an old organic marketing blog pieces don't make it so. HuckleB Apr 2016 #279

That piece debunks the piece written by Christie Wilcox - corporation shill womanofthehills Apr 2016 #284

No, it doesn't. HuckleB Apr 2016 #286

The most commonly used "organic" fungicide is Copper Sulfate Major Nikon May 2016 #396

I discovered some time ago that Republicans don't have a monopoly on stupid. Act_of_Reparation Apr 2016 #237

Yup nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #256

. HuckleB Apr 2016 #258

It's amazing to see the disconnect. HuckleB Apr 2016 #259

DU, and liberalism more broadly, are subcultures.... Act_of_Reparation Apr 2016 #262

Spot on, and fantastic insight. HuckleB Apr 2016 #263

It's Sociology 101, not "a fantastic insight". CanSocDem Apr 2016 #314

Derp. HuckleB Apr 2016 #315

rats - are you projecting again! womanofthehills Apr 2016 #124

Seralini's abuse of rats is sad. HuckleB Apr 2016 #129

Sad? - the rats got to eat your favorite stuff - glyphosate womanofthehills Apr 2016 #342

As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. HuckleB Apr 2016 #343

As usual, you are living on a different planet womanofthehills Apr 2016 #370

I am on the real planet. HuckleB Apr 2016 #376

They fed them a liter of soda. Indydem Apr 2016 #27

I was thinking the same thing TexasBushwhacker Apr 2016 #272

Just had my bowl of chia seeds and am aware of DhA's effects but this blew me away Person 2713 Apr 2016 #16

what's DHA? dionysus Apr 2016 #177

Wondering why HFCS and Sucrose were not tested....... yellowcanine Apr 2016 #18

Because that was what they were studying. And Anti HFCS Woo mongers are misinterpreting. Thor_MN Apr 2016 #80

In sucrose fructose and glucose are chemically combined as one molecule. yellowcanine Apr 2016 #99

When sucrose dissolves, the fructose and glucose separate. They are the same. Thor_MN Apr 2016 #102

Not really - needs to undergo hydrolysis, a chemical reaction. yellowcanine Apr 2016 #104

Did you read what you posted? Thor_MN Apr 2016 #105

Yep, it is a chemical reaction. And you mistated what I said about metabolism. yellowcanine Apr 2016 #106

See ya. Thor_MN Apr 2016 #111

For that matter, what about grapes and grape juice? D Gary Grady May 2016 #404

Sucrose is not a "mixture". It is a disaccharide with one glucose and one fructose molecule n/t eridani Apr 2016 #131

True, and that weak bond is broken virtually immediately by a weak acid Major Nikon Apr 2016 #135

So why did our digestive tracts ever evolve sucrases? eridani Apr 2016 #202

Because your body needs enzymes to digest all carbohydrates Major Nikon Apr 2016 #216

OK--then stomach acidity is irrelevant. Glad we agree n/t eridani Apr 2016 #296

I agree to no such nonsense Major Nikon Apr 2016 #298

I discovered a third form of carbonic anhydrase, so I know what an enzyme is eridani Apr 2016 #299

Well you certainly failed to demonstrate that knowledge Major Nikon Apr 2016 #300

You need digestive enzymes. That's mostly what breaks down sucrose into eridani Apr 2016 #301

Wrong Major Nikon Apr 2016 #303

That is bullshit. The enzyme catalazed rate is 1000X the uncatalyzed rate eridani Apr 2016 #361

I am aware of the chemical structure of sucrose. Thor_MN Apr 2016 #153

It does NOT mean a molecule. Salad dressing is a mixture. Sucrose is not n/t eridani Apr 2016 #201

I have a BA in chemistry. I am well aware of the technical differences. Thor_MN Apr 2016 #217

If acidity alone does the trick, why do we have sucrases? n/t eridani Apr 2016 #297

You think there is only one way to skin a cat? Thor_MN Apr 2016 #304

I don't just think, I KNOW that catalyzed reactions are thousands of times faster than eridani Apr 2016 #362

And,,, You've admited uncatalyzed reactions exist, destroying your line of... Thor_MN Apr 2016 #365

If uncatalized rates were fast enough, there would be no sucrase or invertase n/t eridani Apr 2016 #372

I see logic is not your strong suit either. Thor_MN Apr 2016 #373

I'd like people to quit talking about acidic hydrolysis as if it were meaningful eridani Apr 2016 #377

Get over it. The fact that there are enzymes in no way invalidates other mechanisms. Thor_MN Apr 2016 #378

Food doesn't sit around for months in your digestive tract eridani Apr 2016 #379

Wow. Have fun with your beliefs, you are out there on your own island. Thor_MN Apr 2016 #380

If acid were enough, sucrase and invertase would not exist, period n/t eridani May 2016 #383

Back to the "There can be only one" nonsense, with absolutely nothing to back it up... Thor_MN May 2016 #384

Let sucrose sit around long enough in acid and it will eventually hydrolyze eridani May 2016 #387

We don't have invertase in our guts, unless we add it to our food. Thor_MN May 2016 #388

WE've got sucrase n/t eridani May 2016 #389

Yes, we do. Which still means nothing, as you have no point. Thor_MN May 2016 #390

Acid hydrolysis takes place over time in bottles eridani May 2016 #391

Bargle, garble same old crap. Thor_MN May 2016 #393

Working and being significant are two different things. eridani May 2016 #394

Which skeptics? Your link doesn't compare different sugars. N/t Humanist_Activist Apr 2016 #20

I was thinking the same thing. drm604 Apr 2016 #39

I think even saying sugar is bad for you is incorrect, we need it to live... Humanist_Activist Apr 2016 #46

True, and obviously that's what I meant. drm604 Apr 2016 #51

I like my spoonful of sugars, there's also the other side, lack of exercise. Humanist_Activist Apr 2016 #54

You and me both (and every other human on the planet). drm604 Apr 2016 #64

Fish from where? womanofthehills Apr 2016 #117

I'm not aware of any cesium contamination in commercial fish (maybe I just haven't heard about it) drm604 Apr 2016 #147

It's only been the Pacific Ocean fish womanofthehills Apr 2016 #281

Too much salt, too much potassium...not enough sodium, not enough etc.. Rex Apr 2016 #77

Too much alcohol, on the other hand, is relative, especially... HuckleB Apr 2016 #79

That was what the article was about. How DHA protects the brain and perhaps improves the brain. LiberalArkie Apr 2016 #230

Exactly. That's why I said it. drm604 Apr 2016 #232

And what were they wrong about before? HuckleB Apr 2016 #40

A tanker full of HFCS overturned and ruptured on a highway near here. Orrex Apr 2016 #21

We manipulate the market to insure the use of corn syrup in our foods... jtuck004 Apr 2016 #22

The Japanese invented it but Ohio perfected it. fasttense Apr 2016 #24

What's hilarious about self-described "skeptics" is that they are never skeptical about corporate villager Apr 2016 #26

+ 1 AxionExcel Apr 2016 #41

Well that's just not true, but keep believing that if it makes you feel better. n/t Humanist_Activist Apr 2016 #47

I'd love to see some examples of "corporate skepticism...." villager Apr 2016 #48

Examples of concern, in for example, food production... Humanist_Activist Apr 2016 #49

Those are some good points. villager Apr 2016 #50

The issue is when you have to make shit up to get your point across, that's not honest... Humanist_Activist Apr 2016 #53

Not sure where those replies are headed, exactly. villager Apr 2016 #61

We are talking about scientific issues, not political or economic... Humanist_Activist Apr 2016 #74

You seem to think the political and economic is entirely divorced from the scientific. villager Apr 2016 #113

The scientific should be used to inform policies, but aren't policies themselves.... Humanist_Activist Apr 2016 #204

Alas in 1986 when I took a college class nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #223

Except you appear to want to simply make things up and pretend science will support them. HuckleB Apr 2016 #225

Look even if I cited the actual early studies here nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #226

Again, those studies refer to fructose. HuckleB Apr 2016 #227

Making the same FUD arguments nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #235

Nope. Your accusation is ludicrous. HuckleB Apr 2016 #238

Yes you are nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #239

You haven't bothered to understand the topic at hand. HuckleB Apr 2016 #241

Yup, same exact arguments nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #242

And more baseless assumptions. HuckleB Apr 2016 #243

Actually I do nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #246

You have already pushed misinformation about the topic, so your claim is rather misleading. HuckleB Apr 2016 #247

Cherry picked. Yup more corporate FUD nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #254

You seem to think that ignoring the science and crying "corporate FUD!" magically ... HuckleB Apr 2016 #257

Mirror and self awareness nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #267

Fructose is present in most foods you eat, thats a fact... Humanist_Activist Apr 2016 #268

Excuse me. HuckleB Apr 2016 #269

"Skeptical Inquirer" is the sole arbiter of skepticism? Thor_MN Apr 2016 #305

Monsanto should be blamed - Agent Orange, Dioxin, DDT, Roundup, PCB's, rBGH, GMO's womanofthehills Apr 2016 #118

So now its down to outright lying? Seriously, has there been a single post you have posted... Humanist_Activist Apr 2016 #140

Actually you were lying in one of the posts above womanofthehills Apr 2016 #197

Glyphosate has little toxicity, the levels would have to be extremely high to be toxic to humans.... Humanist_Activist Apr 2016 #206

You say the levels of glyphosate need to be high womanofthehills Apr 2016 #251

And yet you have no worries about organic pesticides and herbicides... HuckleB Apr 2016 #252

What organic pesticide womanofthehills Apr 2016 #285

You've been given links showing that. HuckleB Apr 2016 #292

Youbwould have to drink the concentrate to get measurable health effects.... Humanist_Activist Apr 2016 #255

It seems like our bread supply is getting to that level womanofthehills Apr 2016 #280

Why do you accuse me of lying? Agent Orange brought to you by Monsanto and Dow womanofthehills Apr 2016 #199

No shit, they were forced to do so by the government, the government even knew the health effects... Humanist_Activist Apr 2016 #203

I'd humbly recommend spending more time w/ skeptics Nevernose Apr 2016 #83

Good post. drm604 Apr 2016 #65

Indeed. It's astounding to see people just make blanket statements about others. HuckleB Apr 2016 #67

I've seen many posts of corporate skepticism. ZombieHorde Apr 2016 #101

And that post is the perfect example of what I was talking about. villager Apr 2016 #112

Exxon and the like whom destroy the environment, many banks, etc., ZombieHorde Apr 2016 #148

Not off-topic at all. The sub-thread topic was "who is skepticism reserved for?" villager Apr 2016 #149

The addition of the attack on skeptics was without warrant. HuckleB Apr 2016 #151

No -- it was furthering what was stated in the OP, actually. villager Apr 2016 #155

Thanks for the confirmation. HuckleB Apr 2016 #156

" Anyone can call themselves a skeptic." Thanks for the confirmation! villager Apr 2016 #157

Oh, goodness. That response is more hilarious than you, apparently, could ever imagine. HuckleB Apr 2016 #159

No need to disparage my imagination, my friend. I need it for the SF threads... villager Apr 2016 #186

Ben Goldacre. HuckleB Apr 2016 #108

Interesting how corporate public relations arguments suddenly become the bar of accepted truth. pa28 Apr 2016 #179

Prove it with a consensus of science. HuckleB Apr 2016 #184

Hi HuckleB. pa28 Apr 2016 #192

I'm glad you liked the Cervantes piece. HuckleB Apr 2016 #210

Well, the OP claims that the fructose in HFCS is "different" from other fructose Scootaloo Apr 2016 #231

Exactly. So little "skepticism" applied to corporate PR spin.... villager Apr 2016 #233

The only spin here comes from conspiracy theory, anti-science silliness. HuckleB Apr 2016 #270

Sure. villager Apr 2016 #271

How does this study have anything to do with "the halls of financial and political power?" HuckleB Apr 2016 #273

History simply shows that skepticism should generally be levied toward the powerful villager Apr 2016 #274

Generalized platitudes don't support any of your claims. HuckleB Apr 2016 #275

You are free to have as many corn-syrup laden products as you want, HuckleB villager Apr 2016 #283

And another pointless throw-away post. HuckleB Apr 2016 #288

"You just repeat your preconceptions ad nauseum" villager Apr 2016 #290

Not true. HuckleB Apr 2016 #291

Well, there at least is a genuine yearning for conversation, it seems, underneath all that. villager Apr 2016 #294

Just FYI. HuckleB Apr 2016 #295

Does the OP not use "skeptics" as a pejorative for those who actually understand science? Thor_MN Apr 2016 #306

It was a riposte to those self-anointed "skeptics" who sought to keep the term to themselves villager Apr 2016 #310

Indeed, and, as it turned out, in a rather ironic manner. HuckleB Apr 2016 #311

It does explain where you are coming from... HuckleB Apr 2016 #312

Well, we disagree, though in a non-incendiary manner, at least. villager Apr 2016 #313

I agree with your last comment/question to no end. HuckleB Apr 2016 #321

If you mentioned that name in one our "outside" threads, I forgot. villager Apr 2016 #322

Other countries don't use high-fructose corn syrup in their product. procon Apr 2016 #28

And neither did the study. HFCS is not in this study. Thor_MN Apr 2016 #81

It's my choice, yeah? procon Apr 2016 #89

I hear Cooking and Baking is a good forum. Thor_MN Apr 2016 #90

Don't act like the forum police and try to tell me where I can post and what I can write about. procon Apr 2016 #94

You are actually calling me a son of a bitch? Thor_MN Apr 2016 #95

LOL - SOB is just Internet jargon for Scroll On By procon Apr 2016 #96

OK, but you do see how it works. We both get opinions. Thor_MN Apr 2016 #97

You are really projecting womanofthehills Apr 2016 #121

Do you have anything constructive to contribute or are you just here to insult? Thor_MN Apr 2016 #154

Well it's in the headline of this study womanofthehills Apr 2016 #120

No, it is not, you are 100% wrong. Please try reading it again. Thor_MN Apr 2016 #158

Other countries don't have enormous corn subsidies, either Scootaloo Apr 2016 #228

fructose has long been known to be toxic, this isn't really new. ALSO, most sugar has fructose Fast Walker 52 Apr 2016 #35

Wrong on almost all counts. GaYellowDawg Apr 2016 #69

wow, you basically just rewrote everything I said, but I'm glad we agree overall Fast Walker 52 Apr 2016 #92

There is plenty of Science out there that corborates this. Ferd Berfel Apr 2016 #36

It's not poison. GaYellowDawg Apr 2016 #70

Suggest you read up on HFCS a little more. Ferd Berfel Apr 2016 #71

LOL... GaYellowDawg Apr 2016 #73

+1 HuckleB Apr 2016 #78

Ah, GaYellowdawg, facts are meaningless! Maedhros Apr 2016 #334

Of course our bodies don't metabolize fructose and glucose in the same way. TexasProgresive Apr 2016 #37

A little correction... GaYellowDawg Apr 2016 #72

You were consuming up to 60 cubes of sugar a day. Thor_MN Apr 2016 #85

Maybe, if so why do they feed the Wistar fatty rats fructose to elevate TGs? TexasProgresive Apr 2016 #91

Because fructose is processed in the liver and used to create TGs. Thor_MN Apr 2016 #93

I did not test out of normal until after the switch to HFCS. TexasProgresive Apr 2016 #132

Did you not age before the switch to HFCS? Thor_MN Apr 2016 #150

I guess you have to be right TexasProgresive Apr 2016 #165

Guess what? I am taking Metformin for Type 2 diabetes as of 4 months ago. Thor_MN Apr 2016 #168

Good lecture on fructose mdbl Apr 2016 #38

I know the author of this work greymattermom Apr 2016 #42

Sugar is half fructose. trotsky Apr 2016 #45

Corn Syrup Has Nastier Effects Than Sugar On Female Mice - Reuters AxionExcel Apr 2016 #68

Did you know sugar is half fructose? trotsky Apr 2016 #87

Yes. I also know that apples aren't manufactured from GMO corn raised in glyphosate-soaked fields AxionExcel Apr 2016 #134

Could you demonstrate the chemical difference between fructose in HFCS... trotsky Apr 2016 #136

Please hire a lab to conduct the experiment you require AxionExcel Apr 2016 #138

It's already been done. trotsky Apr 2016 #143

And yet he accepts chemtrails Major Nikon Apr 2016 #161

Warning Warning Warning AxionExcel Apr 2016 #221

I see you're still butthurt over getting banned for pushing chemtrail nonsense Major Nikon Apr 2016 #222

OHHHHHH trotsky Apr 2016 #253

+1 Pastiche423 Apr 2016 #200

Remember "New Coke" tonyt53 Apr 2016 #52

... Major Nikon Apr 2016 #60

+1 HuckleB Apr 2016 #75

Mexican coke in bottles still has sugar womanofthehills Apr 2016 #119

Yeah... About that. A study done in California showed no real difference in Mexican coke. Thor_MN Apr 2016 #307

No one has ever said "all sugars are the same" Scootaloo Apr 2016 #76

How dare you bring reason to an emotional debate... uriel1972 Apr 2016 #86

Roughly 10 years ago, there was research indicating that Ilsa Apr 2016 #82

Links? HuckleB Apr 2016 #110

I've tried to find them. My apologies. Nt Ilsa Apr 2016 #126

The studies were about the hormone leptin, which signals the feeling of satiety. BuddhaGirl Apr 2016 #139

It's related to fructose, which is in table sugar at the same basic amount as HFCS. HuckleB Apr 2016 #142

Then don't pay any attention to it BuddhaGirl Apr 2016 #146

Why would you promote misinformation? HuckleB Apr 2016 #152

Nobody does Major Nikon Apr 2016 #160

Thank you! nt Ilsa Apr 2016 #144

You're welcome! BuddhaGirl Apr 2016 #145

Uhm, fructose is a sugar, are you claiming ohterwise? Table sugar is about half fructose... Humanist_Activist Apr 2016 #141

Eat. Real. Food. milestogo Apr 2016 #88

I don't know what that means. Honey is real food with as much fructose as HFCS. yellowcanine Apr 2016 #100

Don't. Post. Derp. HuckleB Apr 2016 #109

Rude as usual womanofthehills Apr 2016 #122

Get a mirror. HuckleB Apr 2016 #130

Olive Garden is having a special felix_numinous Apr 2016 #114

And lucky children - all you can eat! womanofthehills Apr 2016 #123

This message was self-deleted by its author rjsquirrel Apr 2016 #127

Well DUH! And we have sort of the proof in the pudding nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #162

What are you talking about? HuckleB Apr 2016 #170

IN case you have not heard nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #171

So...? HuckleB Apr 2016 #172

Ok nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #173

So you think it's cool to spread misinformation. HuckleB Apr 2016 #174

Nah, just that science is not a religion nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #191

What dots, what connections? What are you talking about? n/t Humanist_Activist Apr 2016 #208

Read tje thread. And tobacco's downfall started the same way nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #218

Uhm, tobacco's downfall started at attempting to cover up the health effects of tobacco... Humanist_Activist Apr 2016 #260

Science is not a religion, but your connections claim is unsupported. HuckleB Apr 2016 #213

You'll see nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #219

You really are just making it up. WOW! HuckleB Apr 2016 #224

That would have been just as "lunatic" as claiming global warming was coming, in the 70's and 80's villager Apr 2016 #187

I remember a course at San Diego State in 1986 that mentioned it nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #190

I wrote a play about it in the 80's! Even among "edgy" theater folk, they thought it was kind of villager Apr 2016 #193

Some here still call it dystopia nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #194

Certainly not at Titanic Underground villager Apr 2016 #195

True nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #220

Its a long assed study, how long have we been refining sugar? Few hundred years at least... Humanist_Activist Apr 2016 #207

Lies!!!! northernsouthern Apr 2016 #178

So you don't know anything about the topic. HuckleB Apr 2016 #181

I do actually... northernsouthern Apr 2016 #185

If you know so much, why are you pushing propaganda? HuckleB Apr 2016 #211

So, in other words, no you don't. Act_of_Reparation Apr 2016 #240

Never touch the stuff, never fed it to the kids, and the kids never feed it to the Zorra Apr 2016 #234

None of you have ever had fructose? HuckleB Apr 2016 #244

What, you don't believe them? Act_of_Reparation Apr 2016 #264

Hey, wait a second. HuckleB Apr 2016 #265

You know, I'll be honest, it is much healthier to avoid refined sugar, no joke... Humanist_Activist Apr 2016 #261

Bad carbs are bad carbs. ananda Apr 2016 #236

I think the quotation marks and the asterisk kinda cancel each other out. Rex May 2016 #397

And the fact that the OP failed to defend his claims is odd. HuckleB May 2016 #400