141–150 of 212 posts
> In case you’re curious, the ADA and Splenda appear to be still at it. As I write this, the ADA’s Diabetes Food Hub web page still features no fewer than 203 recipes – some marked “sponsored”, some not – that include Splenda, whose parent company’s $1m contribution has brought to light the utter insanity of our diabetes epidemic. If you call yourself the " American Diabetes Association", (why) aren't there regulatio…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
America is a pair of continents, not the name of a country. The US federal government doesn't hold a trademark. The notion that companies shouldn't be allowed to name themselves after geographic features or political regions is absurd.
In America, the pair of continents are know as "the Americas". Every American knows singular 'America' refers to America. > But in other countries we say- Other countries exist?
It is sort of irrelevant what other countries call America or if they divide up the continents differently. Other languages name things differently.
Classic principal-agent problem. It's why you can't usually trust experts who aren't aligned with you. One way is skin in the game. But I suppose "if you aren't paying, you're not the customer" applies as well to nutrition and medicine as it does to free webmail.
In light of this news, how should we reevaluate some of the recent admonishments to "trust the experts" and "don't do your own research"?
Does anybody say that? I see a lot of "some guy making a convincing-seeming argument on youtube is not doing your own research unless you fact check it by legitimately looking for omitted or incorrect statements, because there's a million crazy echo chambers out there".
"Do your own research" can be a red flag, but only because so many people are bad at research, not because research is bad. It's important to look for comprehensive information and not just search for what you already think is correct.
other comment> The "trust the authorities" perspective currently en vogue is certainly not that "doing your own research works." It's that one needs an MD or PhD in a medical field in order to evaluate research, and hence should defer judgment on personal decisions to such qualified individuals (or more often, in practice, to institutions which purport to speak for them like the AMA, AAP, or American Diabetes Association).
It's not that you need it, it's that you'd better put serious effort in to make up for it, and you need to take scientific consensus very seriously (Which is not the same as listening to the most prominent voices. But if almost every expert top to bottom is saying the same thing, they're almost certainly right.)
And for 95% of things, you're not going to put in enough research to understand from base principles. So if you're outsourcing, outsource to someone competent.
I feel like diabetes will be difficult to cure because it's like tobacco: you need to buy expensive consumables at regular intervals (needles, cgms, insulin, etc). Stem cell therapy to restore beta cell functionality (for T1) would threaten and disrupt that sweet regular cash flow. So I imagine companies will fight hard to keep diabetics purchasing their regular consumables until the end if time if possible
The insurance companies that pay for a lot of the supplies you talk about would prefer a one stop solution if it costs less. The big expense due to diabetics for insurance companies is not those consumables, it’s the consequences of dialysis and amputations.
I feel like diabetes will be difficult to cure because it's like tobacco: you need to buy expensive consumables at regular intervals (needles, cgms, insulin, etc). Stem cell therapy to restore beta cell functionality (for T1) would threaten and disrupt that sweet regular cash flow. So I imagine companies will fight hard to keep diabetics purchasing their regular consumables until the end if time if possible
If you don't get T2 diabetes in the first place, because you got good advice, you will never get to the needles and insulin stage at all.
From the linked study, "These findings of positive associations between artificial sweetener intakes and increased T2D risk strengthen the evidence that these additives may not be safe sugar alternatives." This is news to me. I was under the impression that: 1) artificial sweeteners were a safe substitute for sugar for people with diabetes and 2) diabetes came from excess sugar consumption which wasn't a problem with…
Like most associations and trade groups, they are beholden to whatever gives them money. It's like when the Academy of nutrition and dietetics was sponsored by Pepsi and Mars.
That group has rubbed me the wrong way for a long time, ever since I saw one of their publications (ca. mid-2000s, I think?) and found it full of glossy food stylist photos, magazine-like layouts, and stock vacuous advice like eating "smaller portions" and a "varied diet". For all of its shortcomings and the undeniable political swamp it has to ford through editing and publication, I bet you'd very much get more spec…
If you want to see something really hilarious, look up Pepin Tuma, their former government affairs guy. Total jerk. There are countless videos of him threatening and berating government committees over their skepticism of the license. He was finally fired a couple of years ago.
> In case you’re curious, the ADA and Splenda appear to be still at it. As I write this, the ADA’s Diabetes Food Hub web page still features no fewer than 203 recipes – some marked “sponsored”, some not – that include Splenda, whose parent company’s $1m contribution has brought to light the utter insanity of our diabetes epidemic. If you call yourself the " American Diabetes Association", (why) aren't there regulatio…
Too often it feels like bribing politicians is cheaper than paying employees!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
America is a pair of continents, not the name of a country. The US federal government doesn't hold a trademark. The notion that companies shouldn't be allowed to name themselves after geographic features or political regions is absurd.
In the US, if you ask 100 people what "America" is, they'll tell you it's the name of the country they live in. And since language is defined by use, yes -- America is the name of a country. The shortened version, of course, just like "Mexico" is the shortened version of the "United Mexican States". Surely you're not going to claim that Mexico isn't the name of a country either? And no, "America" is not a pair of con…
If my name were “Bob of Idaho”, nobody would think Idaho meant only me. They would simply know I lived there.
Yes the United States are in the Americas, but it isn’t the entirety of them!
We have no more right to call ourselves “American” than Chileans do!