Re: CIA behind it

From your statement, here is the first sentence: "Sugar is no more damaging now than it was in the 50's."

Where are the scientific studies that you consider to be supportive of the above statement?

Were any of these studies carried out through FDA approved clinical trials where one group took refined Sugar and the other group (the control group) did not? I did not see comparison and explaination of any scientific tests in your post on this.

Not everyone agrees with your statement. For those many, many people you need to povide evidence for what you say.

Simply because you have a gigantic Sugar industry that agrees with your position does not mean you don't have to provide evidence for it. Those people who question that Sugar is not damaging are not going to blindly accept what you say and swallow it whole. Why should anyone simply accept what you say without critical thinking?

Yet, instead of showing the scientific studies that are important to your position, you go on to demand that others demonstrate the value of their comment with more and more scientific studies while you don't have to do so! This is a double standard. You have one standard for yourself and another, higher standard for those who oppose your views. There are many people who believe this is fair.
Do you? Do your own research and copy and paste here the scientific studies you mention (or type the links) so that others can read them to see if they are relevant.

So far you don't find this necessary because you haven't posted any news articles showing that sugar is good for you or that it's neutral, neither good nor bad. If sugar isn't any worse for you now that it was in the 50's, was it bad for you in the 50's? Tweet