We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
you know the journal American Medical Association published a a paper from uh a group of people at UCSF in 2016 uh discussing or actually showing the actual internal memos from sugar companies you know decades ago detailing how they paid off three Harvard professors to falsified data and publish fraudulent studies to make it appear as if cholesterol caused heart disease when it was you know when actually sugar was implicated
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
so there were a lot of studies that blamed cholesterol falsely and they they doctored their evidence they doctored their studies they doctored their data to make it appear as that cholesterol was a problem and to you know hide in this case they were they were hiding the correlation between increased sugar you know refined sugar and and heart disease