Originally Posted by Black Bud

To those who question my last post? Go ahead and read the study extracts put up by Tom Stormcrowe again. Both rat studies.

As for the human studies? Are any of you sure they are not all--if they even exist--"data dredges"? If there are any that are not and have been published, I am sure you can come up with a few cites.

Not that it will support any argument you might have: Epidemiological studies consisting of a bunch of studies that have nothing to do with each other and may not have even tested for the data in question are worse than useless in theory or in application. All too often the "don't do this" or "do this instead" advice being handed out by even the medical establishment is nothing more than some computer model's GIGO that happens to "fit" someone's desired results and is then propagated by other equally lazy researchers. Or the "cr*p" is "pushed" like a "pram" in a medical journal because it fits the current memes and those defective "conclusions" are therefore adopted as "gospel" by most people,--including clinicians in practice--because THEY are too lazy to question what they are told.

Is the job to "Question Authority" important, even when it comes to whether to eat fake "sugar" or the real stuff? Yes: Questioning the data and/or its source is important when deciding what one should do--or eat--or shouldn't. The REAL conclusions--if any--that can be drawn from any data as actually garnered any such studies may say something some people don't want you to know because it will not help THEM make the all important $$$, which is really all that seems to matter these days.