Sugar kills; Bribery hid Coronary study facts.

[SwordfishMining]

Bad, bad, bad sugar men. They hid the facts with paid for propaganda like other "mad men" commonly used to help corporations, well, still do. I still cant remember how to make this play.

[PinkDiamond]

You only use the number of the video, and put it between the youtube brackets; not the URL.

The information he gives is accurate, and it was a conspiracy between the sugar industry and big pHARMa that got everyone and their dog on statins that are also useless, as well as deadly, which doctors in the know are finally admitting.

He didn't even mention the addictive factor of sugar, but anyone who has ever tried to quit drinking that toxic swill called soda will tell you they can't quit. The Cancer Institute had an article this past week saying that Oreos are more addictive than heroin or cocaine, and I guarantee you that anyone who consumes sugar regularly, absolutely cannot quit cold turkey, and there's no 'patch' for that like smoking, although surely they're working on one.

And one more thing. Granulated white sugar has been so heavily processed that it becomes totally denatured, and any nutrients in the original cane are lost leaving empty calories that can lead to diabetes, add to peoples' weight problems, and become food for cancers since cancers feed on sugar. No wonder so many people are sick! ... and what do they give them in the hospital? Ice cream, and jello, and more sugar to add to their misery.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

Soapbox.gif (8.78 KiB) Viewed 1620 times

The air's a little thin up there anyway.

[SwordfishMining]

The patients misery not the nurses LOL

[SwordfishMining]

A word about dental X-Rays. That worked.

[opalcreations]

If you want real scientific data, and the truth about what sugar is really doing to us, watch this lecture, very eye opening.
Need I say that I'm on a completely ZERO sugar diet now...lol.

[PinkDiamond]

John, that one on the dental X-rays is important, and will get hidden in this sugar thread so maybe you should break it out into its own thread.

Big Sugar Paid Scientists to Pin Heart Disease on Saturated Fats
Secret campaign successfully blamed saturated animal fats and hid sugar’s far greater guilt
09/20/2016 By Craig Weatherby



"Newly disclosed scientific misconduct may have harmed millions and wasted billions.

A dentist/researcher at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) found the damning documents in archives at Harvard and other libraries.

The lead author of the resulting paper — Cristin Kearns, DDS, MBA — is a postdoctoral fellow at UCSF.

Once-secret documents show that the sugar industry began working closely with nutrition scientists in the mid-1960s.

Kearns and her UCSF colleagues analyzed more than 340 documents, containing 1,582 pages, sent between the sugar industry and scientists.

They found that the sugar industry funded Harvard studies it hoped would blame dietary cholesterol and saturated fat for coronary heart disease.

In an equally evil move, they essentially paid Harvard scientists to downplay growing evidence that America’s sugar habit posed an equal or greater risk to cardiovascular health.

Motive of the deception: Shift blame and sell more sugar

By 1954, the sugar industry’s leading trade organization came to a profitable conclusion.

It estimated that if Americans adopted low-fat diets, their consumption of cane sugar (sucrose) would likely rise by more than one-third.

That rise in sugar intake would result as people tried to compensate for reductions in the fat content of their diets by adding sugar, or picking products with added sugars.

In 1965, evidence of the heart risks of sucrose began to draw media attention.

Specifically, new evidence was linking dietary sugar to high blood cholesterol and triglyceride levels had begun to emerge.

The hypothesis that dietary cholesterol and saturated fats cause heart disease has since been discredited, although it persists in obsolete guidance from private and public health authorities.

See “Recent review exonerates saturated fat, highlights sugars’ harm to hearts”, below.

Sugar-funded studies swayed medical and public opinion

In response to emerging negative evidence concerning sugar, the industry commissioned “Project 226” … a review of the scientific literature by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health’s Nutrition Department.

The Harvard team’s 1967 evidence review was widely accepted by doctors, thanks to the combined prestige of Harvard and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

Harvard scientists concluded there was “no doubt” that the only dietary intervention required to prevent coronary heart disease was to reduce dietary cholesterol and substitute polyunsaturated fat (from cheap vegetable oils) for saturated fat (from meats and dairy foods).

“The literature review helped shape not only public opinion on what causes heart problems but also the scientific community’s view of how to evaluate dietary risk factors for heart disease,” said Dr. Kearns, who discovered the industry documents.

Details of the disturbing discovery

The sugar industry paid Dr. Hegsted and other Harvard scientists the equivalent of $50,000 in today's dollars to conduct the literature review.

Worse, the sugar industry also set the review’s objective, contributed articles to be included, and received drafts.

However, in line with common practice at the time, the industry’s funding and role were not disclosed in the final NEJM publication.

The literature review heavily criticized studies linking added sucrose — mostly from cane sugar — to heart disease, while ignoring the flaws and limitations of studies that indicted dietary fats.

The Harvard scientists' evidence review argued that cholesterol levels were the only significant risk factor for coronary heart disease.

That erroneous conclusion made the high sugar content of the 1960s-era American diet — mostly sucrose from cane sugar — seem less hazardous than if blood triglycerides were also considered to be a risk factor.

Recent review exonerates saturated fat, highlights sugars’ harm

Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Missouri, is a very well regarded institution.

Earlier this year, researchers at Saint Luke's ratified the recent reversals of scientific opinion with regard to the effects of sugars and saturated fats on heart disease risk (DiNicolantonio JJ et al. 2016).

It’s well worth quoting from their rebuttal to conventional claims about saturated fats (SFAs) and coronary heart disease (CHD):

* “Dietary guidelines continue to recommend restricting intake of saturated fats … [because some kinds] … can raise levels of total serum cholesterol (TC) … [but] TC is only modestly associated with CHD ...”

* “As for saturated fats, these fats are a diverse class of compounds; different fats may have different effects on LDL [cholesterol] and on broader CHD risk ... Some food sources of SFAs may pose no risk for CHD or possibly even be protective.”

* “Advice to reduce saturated fat in the diet without regard to nuances about LDL, SFAs, or dietary sources could actually increase people's risk of CHD.”

* “When saturated fats are replaced with refined carbohydrates, and specifically with added sugars (like sucrose or high fructose corn syrup), the end result is not favorable for heart health.”

For more on this topic, see False Advice on Fats? and its links to related reports.

Need for more transparency in science

The authors of the explosive UCSF paper stressed the unreliability of studies by scientists with conflicts of interest, and the need for financial disclosure.

“As the saying goes, he who pays the piper calls the tune,” said senior author Stanton A. Glantz, Ph.D. “There are all kinds of ways that you can subtly manipulate the outcome of a study, which industry is very well practiced at.”

Co-author Laura Schmidt, Ph.D., noted that — after decades of calling saturated fat the chief dietary culprit in heart disease — the science blaming sugar continues to grow, but health policy has only just begun to catch up.

As she said, “There is now a considerable body of evidence linking added sugars to hypertension and cardiovascular disease, which is the No. 1 cause of premature death in the developed world. Yet, health policy documents are still inconsistent in citing heart disease risk as a health consequence of added sugars consumption.”

Last year, The New York Times reported that Coca-Cola gave millions of dollars to researchers whose subsequent scientific papers played down the link between sugary drinks and obesity.

Likewise, The Associated Press reported last June that candy makers have been funding studies purporting to show that children who eat candy tend to weigh less than other children.

In contrast, the UCSF study was funded by ... "
https://www.vitalchoice.com/article/sug ... vmlfscwvqb

[opalcreations]

Looks like we are on the same page

[PinkDiamond]

Yes, and I can tell you that whenever a patient who says they're in incredible pain for whatever reason calls to book an appointment, the first thing he tells them is to avoid all sugar, carbs, alcohol; anything with sugar in it because sugar increases the inflammation that contributes to their pain, plus if they're sugar addicts like a few of my siblings are, even if they get relief on the table, as 99% of them normally do, it won't last, and the spine will slip back into its former 'malposition', sometimes on their way home. And don't get me started on that HFCS crap that is now appearing under what one would think are benign names, such as simply listing it as corn sugar, and they use other terms to conceal it from the public because they know it has such a bad reputation for causing all sorts of health issues, and especially obesity.

[opalcreations]

I've been on a completely sugar free raw vegan diet for almost 2 months now, no meat, eggs, dairy, wheat, corn or anything processed, basically only fruit and vegetable juice fasting, I've lost around 30 lbs in only 1.5 months, and alot of my symptoms have disappeared all together.

Additionally, I just had my 9th CAT scan (yes, I know Pink, stupid of me to let them do that to me, lol) and my cancer doctor just informed me that I only have a 0.9% chance of the cancer returning!
YIPPEE!

I'm not playing Russian roulette anymore with my diet.

[PinkDiamond]

I'm so proud of you Chris, because you took responsibility for your health and took charge of it; you and bit the bullet and did what needed to be done, and now you're reaping the rewards. I'm so happy for you I'm tickled pink.