Conspiracy Theories

[Disneyphile]

Recently, I've been pondering about claims of "hidden information", and wonder how much the truth gets skewed by propaganda on both sides of various issues. And, I've seen people almost panic or have "seen the light" after reading articles from just one side of the issues, to the point that it almost becomes their religion.

For example:


2012 - We're all gonna die, because the Mayan calendar ends at that time!
Soda - It will kill you! Our test subject consumed 5 liters a day and it made her sick, so it's obviously bad to consume even small amounts!
Weather Patterns - It's not nature, it's global warming and we're all to blame. Every time we drive to the store an ice cube melts in someone's beer cooler!
Corporations - If a company becomes successful and known around the world and has more than 5 employees, it's obviously evil.
Food - McD's will kill you! Our test subject ate nothing but McD's for 30 days and it made him sick, so it's obviously bad to consume even small occasional amounts!
HFCS - Aids corn farmers and "supports" our economy, and is no different than cane sugar.


Anyway, the more I watch the pendulum swing, the more I groan. And, some folks seem so bent on just believing the first thing they read, they absolutely refuse (and in personal experience, have even gotten angry) to even look at a case-study from the other side of the fence and actually use their brains to draw their own conclusions. (And, yes, I have seen "Super Size Me" and thought it was a poor case-study, because they didn't highlight the health impact of someone who eats that stuff only on occasion. I had to look that stuff up myself.)

So, I'm beginning to think that it's all conspiracy theories from extreme points of view on both sides. Is there any way to just meet in the middle anymore, or are people just becoming more and more polarized until the planet almost divides itself in half.

I personally believe in balance. For example, if corporations didn't exist, there would be millions of people out of work that most "mom and pop" places would not be able to hire, let alone afford to provide benefits.

Everything has its pros and cons. And, the choices that are best for some, may not be best for another, and I find it horrible when one side tries to impose its "religion" on the other.

Thoughts? Theories?

[Alex]

Poof. You're a libertarian.

[BarTopDancer]

I don't see the examples being conspiracy theories, instead being propaganda for an agenda.

HFCS - Aids corn farmers and "supports" our economy, and is no different than cane sugar.

Personally, without reading any of the effects I know that *I* feel better if I don't consume products with HFCS in them. I don't avoid them like the plague; if I want a soda I'll drink a soda. If I'm out to eat and want ketchup with my fries I'll have ketchup. But I know products with HFCS in them make me feel sluggish (all products). Most people who I know don't think HFCS is horrible/evil but their body does process it differently then sugar and the effects are different.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Most people who I know don't think HFCS is horrible/evil but their body does process it differently then sugar and the effects are different.
There is simply no scientific evidence to support his claim.

The body processes fructose differently than other sugars (such as glucose). However, high fructose corn syrup is not pure fructose. It's 55% fructose, 45% glucose. Regular table sugar (cane sugar and beat sugar) is sucrose, which is a chemical composition of glucose and fructose, a molecule of sucrose being composed of 1 molecule of each. There is a notable chemical difference in that HFCS is a mixture of the two (i.e., they remain separate molecules) while in table sugar the glucose and fructose molucles are chemically bonded. However the Sucrose is broken up basically contact with stomach acid (actually, since your saliva is slightly acidic, the reaction begins before you even swallow) into its component glucose and fructose molecules. Therefore, by the time you're actually digesting anything, they are virtually identical products.

All the data that people point to about the supposedly negative effects of HFCS are studies done with 100% fructose and is therefore completely irrelevant to the matter. There have been no studies that show any difference between the bodies reaction to HFCS and sucrose. Has it been ruled out? No, I don't think there have been enough studies. But I guarantee that, anecdotal experiences aside, no one who makes claims of negative effects of HFCS have any relevant studies that back it up, only studies on pure fructose.

[Gemini Cricket]

Corporations - If a company becomes successful and known around the world and has more than 5 employees, it's obviously evil.
This one's true.

[Disneyphile]

I don't see the examples being conspiracy theories, instead being propaganda for an agenda.
I see them as the same thing, really... ideas that are stretched to provoke shocked reactions.

I'm right there with you on the HFCS thing though - my body personally feels better when consuming sugar than HFCS.

[flippyshark]

It is certainly wise to withhold support for any idea until you have examined the evidence. There is plenty of nut-cakery, corporate misinformation and passionately argued nonsense out there. I agree that the middle ground is a good starting place if I don't happen to have any substantial knowledge on an issue.

When I do lean strongly one way or another, I think it's a great idea to purposefully seek out the best arguments from the side opposite to the one I find myself on. At the very least, it means I might gain a better understanding of why people hold the views they hold, and may be able to see exactly where the misunderstanding or bad information is coming from. (Who knows, I might even change my mind, though this is really rare, and usually happens gradually, not in a sudden facepalm slap of enlightenment.)

I don't feel like I know enough to argue a position until I can articulate the other view in such a way that my opponent agrees I'm not attacking a straw man.

That said, the middle ground isn't always the place to be. Sometimes one side is really and truly wrong. I feel very comfortable saying that holocaust deniers, young earth creationists, anti-vaccine activists and moon landing hoax claimers have got it wrong. Human-caused global warming? I'm still catching up and have a lot of reading to do, but I wouldn't bet against it. (HFCS? Isn't gonna kill me, but I sure don't like it much.)

Now, just how many directions is this thread going to go!

[Alex]

Since honey and HFCS are essentially the same thing, for those who have issues with HFCS do you have similar issues with honey?

I have issues with HFCS along Michael Pollan lines, but I've never seen anything that convinces me it is, in and of itself, any worse than other sugars.

[BarTopDancer]

Since honey and HFCS are essentially the same thing, for those who have issues with HFCS do you have similar issues with honey?

I tend to only consume honey in tea when I am sick and have no voice. And since I am already feeling like crap I couldn't give you an honest answer to that question.

[Not Afraid]

The only conspiracy I see is the fact that people think there is a conspiracy at all. Mostly, there isn't one. However, taking the extreme path to a point at least gets people to consider change - unless it is PETA doing the talking.

[€uroMeinke]

There is simply no scientific evidence to support his claim.



But I think that's the issue - people make decisions on what they feel and then find ways to justify it. Perhaps it's the other crap in processed foods that make people feel bad, perhaps its guilt for eating crappy food - HFCS ends up sounding like a reasonable explanation/scapegoat. Same with evil corporations, fascist conservatives, Nazi liberals, and God.

[lashbear]

At least we all agree that the Apollo 11 Mission was faked in a studio.

[3894]

Anyway, the more I watch the pendulum swing, the more I groan.

I have no idea how old you are, Disneyphile, but this is what happens when you've lived long enough to see that pendulum go back and forth, back and forth. It's the way of the world.

Signed,
Grandmother Willow

[scaeagles]

I consider myself to be a bit of a conspiracy theorist, but more int he abstract. I beleive there is a whole hell of a lot more going on than I know, but have resigned myself to the fact that I will never know it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

This seems apropos.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/revolutionary.png

"I mean, what's more likely -- that I have uncovered fundamental flaws in this field that no one in it has ever thought about, or that I need to read a little more? Hint: it's the one that involves less work."

[3894]

"I mean, what's more likely -- that I have uncovered fundamental flaws in this field that no one in it has ever thought about, or that I need to read a little more? Hint: it's the one that involves less work."

Words Sarah Palin lives by.

[Betty]

What about chemtrails?

I know I know - they are the trails of jets that dissapate. Why then do the trails sometimes form huge cloud banks that look like oil on water rainbow effect?

[Ghoulish Delight]

What about chemtrails?

I know I know - they are the trails of jets that dissapate. Why then do the trails sometimes form huge cloud banks that look like oil on water rainbow effect?
Four words. Humidity, temperature, wind, refraction.

[Alex]

What about chemtrails?

Wow, that brings back memories of Art Bells fascination with contrails killing us all back a decade or more.

Haven't though of them in a long time.

[Ghoulish Delight]

People seem to be okay with atmospheric water causing rainbows when it rains, but then it couldn't possibly be just water causing it when it's a contrail.

[flippyshark]

I consider myself to be a bit of a conspiracy theorist, but more int he abstract. I beleive there is a whole hell of a lot more going on than I know, but have resigned myself to the fact that I will never know it.

But WHY do you believe that? Would you describe it as a hunch or feeling? Or do you arrive at that position by way of evidence? Would you be a) disappointed or b) relieved to discover that, by and large, the simpler explanations are usually the correct ones?

[Strangler Lewis]

I don't know much about conspiracies, but I do find mixed messages in the OP. It argues the wisdom of moderation and the occasional treat using the tone of, for instance, guilt-free, f***-the-crazies-drill-baby-drill-anti-environmentalists.

The problem with the premise is that McDonald's and Coke, for instance, do not promote their products as a How-to-eat-like-a-French-woman occasional indulgence. McDonald's wants you to have lunch there every day and then bring home dinner to the kids. Coke wants you to hit the store every night for a six pack along with your Funyuns and pint of Baccardi. Unlike with cigarettes and alcohol, there are no frank--if forced--acknowledgments that this sh*t'll kill ya. There's no French lady caveat that if you indulge, you might want to walk a couple of blocks afterwards.

I'm no scientist, but I know my body. If I eat sweets or junk food or drink my calories in what many people might view as moderation--a latte in the morning, a nightly glass of wine--I gain weight, especially when my exercise level is not where it should be. Doing so doesn't make me a bad person, but it does not leave me where I want to be.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Who eez zees French ladee? She sounds intriguing.

[Strangler Lewis]

Voila! (http://mireilleguiliano.com/)

[Disneyphile]

McDonald's wants you to have lunch there every day and then bring home dinner to the kids. Coke wants you to hit the store every night for a six pack along with your Funyuns and pint of Baccardi.And, I think they should have the right to market however they want, because consumers should be responsible for themselves. Many people buy into "value meals" think only of the money supposedly saved, and never of the "nutritional" value of those meals or items. It's up to consumers to look at the nutritional info sheets (which I do think places should provide). Wanting people to buy a product often or exclusively is basic marketing/survival and doesn't make a company "evil". I feel the same about tobacco and alcohol - consumers should be responsible for what goes into their bodies and the consequences associated with it.

For example, if I see a new product in which I'm interested, I'll actually research it first. (And, in this day and age, info is very readily accessible.) I read reviews about both pros and cons, and in the case of food items, I look up the nutritional info. At that point, I decide if the product is right for me. I don't need some "watchdog" trying to sway me one way or the other. That's what our educational system is for - we grow up learning about things like nutrition, etc. Heck, even Sesame Street has Cookie Monster now admitting that cookies are a "sometimes food". There's really no excuse that an adult wouldn't know that eating an entire pack of Oreos could be detrimental to health. It's pretty much common sense.

I overall think of moderation in everything, even things about the environment. I try to not be wasteful, but I also like to enjoy my life. Sometimes, I just might feel like a scenic drive rather than a bike ride or walk, and I'm not going to feel guilty for doing so. My way of reducing landfill is by purchasing large bottles of water then refilling reusable small ones (we used to use a tap water filter, but our water in our current residence is very bad). Yes, I throw those large bottles away, because our place is too small to hold them for recycling. Not to mention the amount of gas I'd burn driving them over to a recycling center. Throwing them away probably makes a lot less impact. And, I certainly don't lose sleep over throwing the bottles in the dumpster. Unfortunately, I've even had someone tell me in my own home how horrible I was for not recycling and not having space was "no excuse". That's the kind of crap that irks me - it's my home, and I should be able to live the way I choose without others telling me what I "should" be doing. Same thing about my body. Yes, I know soda is not technically good for me, but I do enjoy it, so I do so in moderation. Yet, some people feel compelled to tell me about how horrible it is and that it will kill me if I don't completely step away from it all together. An over-excess of anything can kill a person, even water. Yes, I know McD' fries are junk food at best, but I still like to enjoy them on occasion. Yet, I've been told that I need to see "Supersize Me" (which I have, btw), and need to read all sorts of other rhetoric like "Fast Food Nation", etc. and that I'll never eat them again once I do. Um. I like them. So, I'll eat them on occasion. I don't give a **** if they're made from bleached potatoes grown in soil that's been fertilized with every chemical that's ever existed. I just like to enjoy life and don't feel a need to worry about every little thing all the time. I would have actually read "Fast Food Nation" had the author stuck to the topic - tell me what's in fast food that I might not know about. Instead, he had to keep spinning about "evil corporations" like Disney. ;) I never finished it, because I could no longer read since my eyes were in the back of my head. Yet, he's not "evil" for writing an anti-corporate book and not marketing it as such. :rolleyes:


That said, I'm down another pound this week, and yes, I've had some soda this past week. I still haven't had my McRib of this year though, but I will. I should also point out that most of my daily intake consists of raw veggies - about 6-8 cups on most days. Gimme some carrots, zucchini, cucumbers, tomatoes, and other crunchy ones with some hot sauce or a bit of non-fat sour cream, and I'm in heaven. I probably eat healthier than the people who preach to me to completely give up soda and fries.

[Ghoulish Delight]

It's up to consumers to look at the nutritional info sheets (which I do think places should provide).
...
I don't need some "watchdog" trying to sway me one way or the other. The 2nd statement rather contradicts the first, doesn't it? Left to their own devices, it's unlikely that fast food restaurants would willingly make nutritional information available, it's just not good business. So you're clearly okay with some level of wathdoggery, you just draw the line differently than other people as to what's considered an acceptable level vs. over-protectiveness.

"Evil" is a loaded word that doesn't add much to rational conversation, so I won't label, especially in any sort of blanket way, corporations as "evil". On the other hand, have no problem making the observation that, left unchecked, a lot of unsavory things can easily be justified by the profit motive. I'm okay with some "watchdog" taking the time to make sure there's a good chance that the meat I buy in the supermarket isn't going to be infected (not that the FDA is a perfect system, but I'm grateful for every effort made). I'm okay with some "watchdog" making sure that I can buy car seat for my child with some reasonable assurance that it's not going to fail in a fender bender. And I'm NOT okay with leaving that assurance to experience and market forces when "market forces" means, "the car seat that contributed to the most infant deaths gets fewer future sales."

Of course none of this should diminish the role of personal responsibility. But to say that the entire onus is on individuals and whether they educate themselves ignores the reality that our ability to educate ourselves depends in part on corporations' willingness to participate in said education, something that is often counter to their overriding goal of maximizing profit.

[Betty]

I couldn't think of any more conspiracy theories I had heard of and looked some up.

Did you know there are RFID chips in the swine flu vaccine? How about the spiral on the sky a little while back - did you know it was actually an inter dimensional doorway? The internet is full of gems.

[lashbear]

Did you know there are RFID chips in the swine flu vaccine?.
That's a beauty !! I'll have to look that one up. :snap:

[Kevy Baby]

Voila! (http://mireilleguiliano.com/)Viola!

http://library.thinkquest.org/C001468F/library/interviews/viola.jpg

[scaeagles]

But WHY do you believe that? Would you describe it as a hunch or feeling? Or do you arrive at that position by way of evidence? Would you be a) disappointed or b) relieved to discover that, by and large, the simpler explanations are usually the correct ones?

I suppose I believe that because of the vastness of the world and everything I know they keep secret (nothing specific....just military tech, etc), there have to be secret things that I can't even comprehend, and therefore there must be a conspiracy (or many conspiracies) to keep these things from me. And some of those people in charge of such things must have sinister intent.

OK, so I know this makes no logical sense. No evidence whatsoever. Just a feeling.

I wouldn't be disappointed if I found out that there were no such conspiracies. I would just believe there was a conspiracy to keep the conspiracies secret.

That sounds completely insane. But I don't feel insane. I suppose the insane never do and that's what makes them insane.

[flippyshark]

Very good, then, sca. No, no, i'm sure you're completely sane. <smiles and backs away slowly as he picks up the secret red phone to contact the Illuminati and the gnomes of zurich and warn them.>

[Disneyphile]

GD, you made excellent points. :)

I also suppose "watchdog" means something a bit different to me. I'm totally for management organizations, such as the FDA, etc. It's the "activist" groups. (i.e. PETA trying to have meat removed from school lunches, etc.)

[alphabassettgrrl]

Extremism is easy, it's dramatic, and it gets a lot of attention. I think things like "Super Size Me" and "Fast Food Nation" are meant to shock people into recognizing their patterns, that while burgers are ok as a sometimes food, these targeted audiences are eating it all the time. These people need a slap in the face to "get" it. Moderation (while rational) is something they ignore if at all possible.

Personally, the evil in corporations and HFCS that I see are due to scale. If it were on a smaller scale, no problem, but these things are big enough to crowd out other options and that's what I dislike.

[Kevy Baby]

Extremism is easy, it's dramatic, and it gets a lot of attention.And sadly, it is the only thing that the majority of the people pay attention to.

[Betty]

Small study on HFCS:

http://consumerist.com/2009/12/study-shows-high-high-fructose-corn-syrup-shown-to-cause-obesity-diabetes-heart-disease.html


Over 10 weeks, 16 volunteers on a strictly controlled diet, including high levels of fructose, produced new fat cells around their heart, liver and other digestive organs. They also showed signs of food-processing abnormalities linked to diabetes and heart disease. Another group of volunteers on the same diet, but with glucose sugar replacing fructose, did not have these problems.
People in both groups put on a similar amount of weight. However, researchers at the University of California who conducted the trial, said the levels of weight gain among the fructose consumers would be greater over the long term.

[mousepod]

There is simply no scientific evidence to support his claim.

The body processes fructose differently than other sugars (such as glucose). However, high fructose corn syrup is not pure fructose. It's 55% fructose, 45% glucose. Regular table sugar (cane sugar and beat sugar) is sucrose, which is a chemical composition of glucose and fructose, a molecule of sucrose being composed of 1 molecule of each. There is a notable chemical difference in that HFCS is a mixture of the two (i.e., they remain separate molecules) while in table sugar the glucose and fructose molucles are chemically bonded. However the Sucrose is broken up basically contact with stomach acid (actually, since your saliva is slightly acidic, the reaction begins before you even swallow) into its component glucose and fructose molecules. Therefore, by the time you're actually digesting anything, they are virtually identical products.

All the data that people point to about the supposedly negative effects of HFCS are studies done with 100% fructose and is therefore completely irrelevant to the matter. There have been no studies that show any difference between the bodies reaction to HFCS and sucrose. Has it been ruled out? No, I don't think there have been enough studies. But I guarantee that, anecdotal experiences aside, no one who makes claims of negative effects of HFCS have any relevant studies that back it up, only studies on pure fructose.

Small study on HFCS:

Over 10 weeks, 16 volunteers on a strictly controlled diet, including high levels of fructose, produced new fat cells around their heart, liver and other digestive organs. They also showed signs of food-processing abnormalities linked to diabetes and heart disease. Another group of volunteers on the same diet, but with glucose sugar replacing fructose, did not have these problems.
People in both groups put on a similar amount of weight. However, researchers at the University of California who conducted the trial, said the levels of weight gain among the fructose consumers would be greater over the long term.

This is why I find it difficult to participate in these kind of conversations.

[Alex]

If you want to read the full study, it is here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673878/).

[Alex]

And now having read through the study (not that I've given it a deep read).

GD's post is still correct. This study did not use HFCS. It gave people additional amounts of pure glucose or pure fructose (they continued to eat just as they had before entering the study so they were likely still consuming plenty of sucrose and HFCS).

The study notes that in other research both sucrose (cane sugar) and HFCS have shown similar elevations of some bad things as they're seeing with fructose.

So, this actually does not provide any evidence against using sucrose over HFCS, to the extent that HFCS is condemned so is regular sugar. It does provide evidence for using glucose over fructose but that is not a choice we're presented with in the current marketplace.

While this study was designed to compare the biological effects of glucose and fructose consumption on lipid and carbohydrate metabolism, the potential implications of the results on public health is of interest. Foods and beverages in the US are typically sweetened with sucrose (50% glucose and 50% fructose) or high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which is usually 45%–58% glucose and 42%–55% fructose, rather than pure glucose or fructose. We have reported in a short-term study that the 23-hour postprandial TG profiles in male subjects consuming 25% energy as HFCS (55% fructose) or sucrose were elevated to a degree similar to that observed when pure fructose–sweetened beverages were consumed (19 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18469239)). Therefore, it is uncertain whether the adverse effects of sucrose and HFCS consumption are “diluted” by their lower fructose content relative to pure fructose. Additional studies are needed to compare the long-term effects of consuming HFCS and/or sucrose with 100% fructose.

[Ghoulish Delight]

GD's post is still correct.

Quoted for vanity.

[Kevy Baby]

Quoted for vanity.I didn't know she read LoT

http://fashionbombdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/wild-animal-cover.jpg

[alphabassettgrrl]

And sadly, it is the only thing that the majority of the people pay attention to.

Thus the popularity.

And the driving insane of regular people.

[Alex]

Small study on HFCS:

http://consumerist.com/2009/12/study-shows-high-high-fructose-corn-syrup-shown-to-cause-obesity-diabetes-heart-disease.html

As a follow up, completely independent of this thread ran into someone else talkign about this and ended up at a blog where the lead researcher on this paper (Kimber Stanhope) posted criticism (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/brain/history/450bc.html?position=208?button=4) of the Times story referenced in the Consumerist piece, saying that essentially every sentence contains a fundamental inaccuracy in paraphrasing the study.

This is why, except for a few trusted science journalists I pretty much assume any science story in the newspaper is worthless.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I'm ok with posting summaries of studies, as long as they include a link to the original, whole study. They're long, but at least you can read the author's actual words and results.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm ok with posting summaries of studies, as long as they include a link to the original, whole study. They're long, but at least you can read the author's actual words and results.
Posting a summary is one thing. Posting a summary that completely misses/distorts/lies about the conclusions of the summary is another.

ETA: BTW, Alex, your link isn't to the blog, it's the link about the brain vs. heart.

ETA again: Here (http://www.grist.org/member/268822) is Stanhope's response to the article[/url]

[alphabassettgrrl]

Most summaries miss the point. Half the time I'm not sure they've even read the thing they're reporting on.

So I guess I'm with Alex in saying that science in the news is about worthless. Good for tidbits, but if you really want to know, read the original.

[Ghoulish Delight]

As for posting a link to the original study, more often than not you need to pay for access to the studies.

[Tref]

There is simply no scientific evidence to support his claim.

The body processes fructose differently than other sugars (such as glucose). However, high fructose corn syrup is not pure fructose. It's 55% fructose, 45% glucose. Regular table sugar (cane sugar and beat sugar) is sucrose, which is a chemical composition of glucose and fructose, a molecule of sucrose being composed of 1 molecule of each. There is a notable chemical difference in that HFCS is a mixture of the two (i.e., they remain separate molecules) while in table sugar the glucose and fructose molucles are chemically bonded. However the Sucrose is broken up basically contact with stomach acid (actually, since your saliva is slightly acidic, the reaction begins before you even swallow) into its component glucose and fructose molecules. Therefore, by the time you're actually digesting anything, they are virtually identical products.

All the data that people point to about the supposedly negative effects of HFCS are studies done with 100% fructose and is therefore completely irrelevant to the matter. There have been no studies that show any difference between the bodies reaction to HFCS and sucrose. Has it been ruled out? No, I don't think there have been enough studies. But I guarantee that, anecdotal experiences aside, no one who makes claims of negative effects of HFCS have any relevant studies that back it up, only studies on pure fructose.

Hey, how about dumbing that down, Eisenstein.

[Alex]

Whoops. Well, that's a very interesting timeline on what people thought about the brain through history that I found after replying to CP in the WTF thread.

It is annoying that full papers generally are behind prescription walls so I was very pleasantly surprised to find that one out in public. Though you usually can find the abstract and conclusions online which is often enough to get an eye on how it is being distorted in the press.

[Morrigoon]

He's saying that the research wasn't actually using high-fructose corn syrup (which is a glucose-fructose mix), instead it used 100% fructose. So scientifically, the study results can't be applied to HFCS

And he misspelled beet sugar ;)

[Ghoulish Delight]

So what if I did, and don't call me sugar.

[Alex]

He's saying that the research wasn't actually using high-fructose corn syrup (which is a glucose-fructose mix), instead it used 100% fructose. So scientifically, the study results can't be applied to HFCS.

More specifically they can't be used to differentiate HFCS and regular sugar since they both contain fructose in similar quantities.

If fructose is bad it would suggest that the fructose in HFCS and sucrose are bad as well.