Science vs the Fructose/HFCS Conspiracy

[Ironman]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 132543.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entre ... %20splenda

post 1 This is hearsay, and is therefore the proof by authority logical fallacy
2 Same us above unless you provide the study
3 Provide the studies showing this
4 proof by authority logical fallacy
5 red herrings
6 Rats lived to natural death, this invalidates cancer studies.
7 Not a proper study, lack of information makes it nothing but hearsay.
8 Lots of typical conspiracy theory red herrings
9 Jebus provided a pretty good one. Read that.
10 Blogs are hearsay.
11 In the first relation does not prove causation, neither were other factors taken into consideration. This is typical of junk science. In the second, it was splenda, and it was rats. It was not duplicated in humans.


You seem to choose rat studies, when human studies are available. Probably because of the results. This is confirmation bias.

Your large volume of links is the proof by verbosity logical fallacy. It is done to look impressive and discourage investigation. It is nearly universal in all conspiracy theories.

[Peter Rouse]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 132543.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entre ... %20splenda

post 1 This is hearsay, and is therefore the proof by authority logical fallacy
2 Same us above unless you provide the study
3 Provide the studies showing this
4 proof by authority logical fallacy
5 red herrings
6 Rats lived to natural death, this invalidates cancer studies.
7 Not a proper study, lack of information makes it nothing but hearsay.
8 Lots of typical conspiracy theory red herrings
9 Jebus provided a pretty good one. Read that.
10 Blogs are hearsay.
11 In the first relation does not prove causation, neither were other factors taken into consideration. This is typical of junk science. In the second, it was splenda, and it was rats. It was not duplicated in humans.


You seem to choose rat studies, when human studies are available. Probably because of the results. This is confirmation bias.

Your large volume of links is the proof by verbosity logical fallacy. It is done to look impressive and discourage investigation. It is nearly universal in all conspiracy theories.

You still fail to provide these human studies that you stated proved your point. Please reference these studies so we can discuss.

I see you failed to research further what I posted - one had over 40 reference with I doubt very much you actually investigated.

Post your human studies!

[Nevage]

I love a good debate, or confliction of views.. it's how we learn the most!

[Ironman]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 132543.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entre ... %20splenda

post 1 This is hearsay, and is therefore the proof by authority logical fallacy
2 Same us above unless you provide the study
3 Provide the studies showing this
4 proof by authority logical fallacy
5 red herrings
6 Rats lived to natural death, this invalidates cancer studies.
7 Not a proper study, lack of information makes it nothing but hearsay.
8 Lots of typical conspiracy theory red herrings
9 Jebus provided a pretty good one. Read that.
10 Blogs are hearsay.
11 In the first relation does not prove causation, neither were other factors taken into consideration. This is typical of junk science. In the second, it was splenda, and it was rats. It was not duplicated in humans.


You seem to choose rat studies, when human studies are available. Probably because of the results. This is confirmation bias.

Your large volume of links is the proof by verbosity logical fallacy. It is done to look impressive and discourage investigation. It is nearly universal in all conspiracy theories.

You still fail to provide these human studies that you stated proved your point. Please reference these studies so we can discuss.

I see you failed to research further what I posted - one had over 40 reference with I doubt very much you actually investigated.

Post your human studies!

Like I said in my response to your 9th post, Jebus posted a good one. read that one for now. I can find more later if needed.

I did investigate. The one with 40 references required very little because they were red herrings. Whether or not those studies were good is irrelevant because they don't address this topic. It was all things like X chemical reaction happens and makes X chemical and that sort of thing. However if the study does not show something where aspartame causes some sort of condition, it is irrelevant.

There was also some hearsay in there clearly used to "poison the well", a common propaganda technique.

Also as you prove with your expectation, the number of items listed is high to discourage scrutiny. You then make the unreasonable demand that I read in detail studies that have no bearing on the argument. This a further ploy to avoid scrutiny.

If you actually wanted to prove your case instead of being intellectually dishonest, you would present a couple quality studies for examination without all the other gratuitous nonsense. You might also address the study that was presented here instead of ignoring it as you have twice done now.

[Peter Rouse]

once again ironman fails to present the studies that he claims proves that HFSC is safe in humans. My question was the studies that YOU referenced.

[Peter Rouse]

Follow the money....

http://www.rense.com/general33/legal.htm

Some critics of Aspartame use have criticized its approval process specifically; they note that the head of the FDA, Jere E. Goyan, was removed from his post on the first day of Ronald Reagan's presidency (1981). Previously, Goyan refused to approve the legalization of aspartame, due to the studies documenting increase of cancers in rats. Reagan appointed Arthur Hayes, MD, (FDA Commissioner 1981-1983) Commissioner, who legalized aspartame a year later. Reagan supporter Donald Rumsfeld was president and later CEO of G. D. Searle Company from 1977 to 1985.[77][78] In November 1983 Hayes was under fire for accepting corporate gifts. He quit and joined Searle's public-relations firm as senior medical advisor. Searle lawyer Robert B. Shapiro, renamed Aspartame NutraSweet. Monsanto purchased Searle. Rumsfeld received a $12 million bonus. Shapiro later became Monsanto president.

Several members of the FDA board left their jobs after stevia (Aspartame's main competitor) was banned in 1991. They were all hired at Nutrasweet in higher paying jobs, according to national records, Dr. Michael Friedman quit the FDA when Jane Henney was selected to become the permanent FDA commissioner (1999). Friedman elected to sign with G. D. Searle as a senior vice president at a purported $500,000 a year. He later accepted a position with Monsanto.

[Ironman]

I love a good debate, or confliction of views.. it's how we learn the most!

Well, there isn't much of an actual debate here. However, this does provide a valuable lesson in critical thinking.

You have a good demonstration of the usual tactics of deception applied to avoid scrutiny. Peter presents them very well indeed. You can see me pointing them out. You also see my technique for avoiding the chasing down of red herrings and keeping the debate on topic.

This can be easily applied to discover (and counter if detected) any bull$h17 artist attempting to fool you. Sometimes the person in question may not be aware that he is trying to trick you. He may have been led to believe these things, internalized them and now the distress of cognitive dissonance is causing his cerebral cortex to try to convince you and thereby himself. This restores the equilibrium and calms the limbic system.

Look up Carl Sagan's "baloney detection kit" for additional information. Also look up "logical fallacy". It should return a good wiki article with a large list of them where they are defined.

It's good that you recognize these things as learning opportunities. That's a great way to look at it. They can indeed provide very good lessons.

[Ironman]

once again ironman fails to present the studies that he claims proves that HFSC is safe in humans. My question was the studies that YOU referenced.

I'm talking about aspartame. I agree with you on HFCS.

This is the third time you have ignored the study. Just because someone else posted it, does not make it less relevant. Please address that study or provide a legitimate study of your own. I will then present an additional study or studies.

[Peter Rouse]

once again ironman fails to present the studies that he claims proves that HFSC is safe in humans. My question was the studies that YOU referenced.

I'm talking about aspartame. I agree with you on HFCS.

This is the third time you have ignored the study. Just because someone else posted it, does not make it less relevant. Please address that study or provide a legitimate study of your own. I will then present an additional study or studies.

I meant Aspartame. I want to see the studies that you claim you have seen. I have already broken down this study, maybe you should before jumping in bed with it.

[Peter Rouse]

once again ironman fails to present the studies that he claims proves that HFSC is safe in humans. My question was the studies that YOU referenced.

I'm talking about aspartame. I agree with you on HFCS.

This is the third time you have ignored the study. Just because someone else posted it, does not make it less relevant. Please address that study or provide a legitimate study of your own. I will then present an additional study or studies.

I meant Aspartame. I want to see the studies that you claim you have seen. I have already broken down this study, maybe you should before jumping in bed with it.

[Peter Rouse]

http://www.healingdaily.com/detoxificat ... artame.htm

If you trust a company like Monsanto then I feel very sorry for you and anyone you manage to convince.

[Peter Rouse]

Ironman, what's your thoughts on GMO?

[Ironman]

Follow the money....

http://www.rense.com/general33/legal.htm

Some critics of Aspartame use have criticized its approval process specifically; they note that the head of the FDA, Jere E. Goyan, was removed from his post on the first day of Ronald Reagan's presidency (1981). Previously, Goyan refused to approve the legalization of aspartame, due to the studies documenting increase of cancers in rats. Reagan appointed Arthur Hayes, MD, (FDA Commissioner 1981-1983) Commissioner, who legalized aspartame a year later. Reagan supporter Donald Rumsfeld was president and later CEO of G. D. Searle Company from 1977 to 1985.[77][78] In November 1983 Hayes was under fire for accepting corporate gifts. He quit and joined Searle's public-relations firm as senior medical advisor. Searle lawyer Robert B. Shapiro, renamed Aspartame NutraSweet. Monsanto purchased Searle. Rumsfeld received a $12 million bonus. Shapiro later became Monsanto president.

Several members of the FDA board left their jobs after stevia (Aspartame's main competitor) was banned in 1991. They were all hired at Nutrasweet in higher paying jobs, according to national records, Dr. Michael Friedman quit the FDA when Jane Henney was selected to become the permanent FDA commissioner (1999). Friedman elected to sign with G. D. Searle as a senior vice president at a purported $500,000 a year. He later accepted a position with Monsanto.

Ah the old "follow the money" red herring. No conspiracy theory is complete without it. I do not discount it out of hand though. There are a small number of cases where this is actually valid.

People come and go from these positions. Coincidences are not proof. You need to have some actual proof before this pattern means anything.

Ironically, some of the anti-sweetener junk science, is done by front companies backed by the sugar industry. So I find your post very amusing.

I'm still waiting for you to site anything showing aspartame causing problems in people. You just keep avoiding that.

[Peter Rouse]

Whats your thoughts on GMO?

[Ironman]

once again ironman fails to present the studies that he claims proves that HFSC is safe in humans. My question was the studies that YOU referenced.

I'm talking about aspartame. I agree with you on HFCS.

This is the third time you have ignored the study. Just because someone else posted it, does not make it less relevant. Please address that study or provide a legitimate study of your own. I will then present an additional study or studies.

I meant Aspartame. I want to see the studies that you claim you have seen. I have already broken down this study, maybe you should before jumping in bed with it.

Then break it down, lets hear it. I'm not in "bed with it". I just recognize is proper application of the scientific method. It needs no support from me.