Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Conclusions In Search of Data

By Rich Kozlovich

Since I sleep so little I am able to do my searches early in the morning. This gives me time without interruption. This morning I came across this article; Cancer cells slurp up fructose, U.S. study finds.

Although I do believe that eating too much sugary products isn’t the basis for a balanced diet or good health, I do insist that I am told the whole story when it comes to “scientific studies”. I have come to the conclusion that insisting on truth in science is a Sisyphean task. There is so much junk science out there with all of these “scientific” studies that none of them can be trusted on face value….and not just the junk science promoted by the greenies. The holy grail of science is no longer truth. The holy grail of science is a Golden Calf; grant money. Government grant money is especially appreciated; and in order to get that money they will give these bureaucratic activists in government what they want. Do we really believe that the Hockey Stick Graph people would have gotten all of that money if they concluded that there was no global warming that was out of line with the rest of the Earth’s history?

This article went on to say that “pancreatic tumor cells use fructose to divide and proliferate” and that “Tumor cells fed both glucose and fructose used the two sugars in two different ways.” They further state that "these findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation” and "They have major significance for cancer patients given dietary refined fructose consumption, and indicate that efforts to reduce refined fructose intake or inhibit fructose-mediated actions may disrupt cancer growth.”

Industry has taken the position that sugar is sugar, and of course a villain must be identified in all of these types of articles and this one is no different. The American Beverage Association and its members, including “Coca-Cola and Kraft Foods have strongly, and successfully, opposed efforts to tax soda.” They say this as if it is iniquitous for these companies to defend themselves.

So we fill out the requirement for junk science and junk journalism. We now have a villain for this “scientifically proven” villainy! And since states are dying to tax someone or something they will love this “study” and can sort of call this a “sin tax” since we now “know” that the food producers are sinners. Therefore they deserve to pay up to help defray the costs of medical care incurred by society because of their products. Yeah right! That is what the tobacco settlement was supposed to do also. Almost none of the money that went to the states ever paid for any medical care.

I would like to share with you information that I received today from my daily ASCH Dispatch from the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) . Information that I receive thankfully I might add! Dr. Gilbert Ross and Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, both of ASCH, put this whole thing in perspective.

Ross states that he was appalled by this “study”. He says that “this assertion is so broad as to be unbelievable. I've never heard of a cancer specialist advising a patient to cut down on refined sugars, nor have I heard that reducing refined sugars helps to prevent or treat any cancer.” Ross went on to say that “In any event, the large majority of our dietary fructose comes from common sugar and fruit — not high fructose corn syrup.”

Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, who heads the ASCH notes that “The overlying problem with this study is that people will use this as an opportunity to say that high fructose corn syrup is more dangerous than regular sugar or honey, even though the research was conducted on cells in a lab and has minimal relevance to human physiology or nutrition,”   Apparently Dr. Ross is quite insistent that “Both the authors and the press need to retract these alarmist and unsupported claims — especially the authors, since such gross over-interpretation of a lab study is inexcusable among academic scientists. They seem to be grasping for headlines and promoting some anti-fructose political agenda.”

Is it any wonder that so many simply ignore these “warnings”? Although further research may show that this is all true, currently it seems apparent that this is just one more study that is nothing more than a conclusion in search of data!

Comments will not be accepted that are rude, crude, stupid or smarmy. Nor will I allow ad hominem attacks or comments from anyone who is "Anonymous”.

###

No comments: