Chemist fired by ADA for not endorsing Splenda-filled salads to diabetics | Hacker News Reader

Chemist fired by ADA for not endorsing Splenda-filled salads to diabetics

theguardian.com

32 pointsracional8 comments

> Guess which company gave more than $1m to the ADA in 2022? Splenda.

It never ceases to amaze me how little money lobbyists need to spend to have such an impact on policy.

Absolutely. It's clear that many areas adhere to the same formula. I commend those who shed light on this or at least pose questions; it's crucial to stay informed and make informed decisions.

I recently began following a prominent cardiologist with extensive experience in diabetes research and patient care. Incorporating his insights has transformed my life. Dr. Pradip Jamnadas focuses on addressing hormonal imbalances caused by diet and insulin production. After following his recommendations for over a year, I've witnessed significant improvements in all my medical indicators.

Needless to say, his recommendations are not normally what you hear her main stream medicine.

I used to say that Congress should be a minimum wage law. However, I have revised that view. I think Congress, as well as the heads of various Federal institutions that have defacto rulemaking power, should be paid handsomely, but they should also be prohibited from having any business dealings other than as a simple purchaser of goods and services during their terms of office. It should be a Federal crime for them to acquire any capital that isn't their paycheck, while they hold office. And we should pay them well enough that they don't need to have any business dealings to live a comfortable life.

This article is rife with statements that appeal to "common knowledge" then back it up with "some doctors say" followed by implications of corruption because they took money from corporations.

I know there is concern over artificial sweeteners but I haven't seen any convincing evidence of the danger. Considering that artificial sweeteners have been some of the most studied chemicals out there, I'd expect to see some solid evidence. Most studies, including the one cited in the article, show a correlation between artificial sweeteners and diabetes but the criticism of those links is usually that the people who use artificial sweeteners are people who already have habits that would cause diabetes that they are trying to curb with artificial sweeteners.

It's generally fair to assume that if corporations are giving millions of dollars to a non-profit that determine policies related to that corporation, there's corruption going on. If they're worried about appearing corrupt I have some suggestions.

> criticism of those links is usually that the people who use artificial sweeteners are people who already have habits that would cause diabetes

That criticism perhaps mixed cause with correlation: keeping a sweet-tooth habit by using artificial sweeteners leads to eating sweet foods containing real sugars?

Think about these recipes in context.

You have a person who is likely overweight, they likely have a palate that is accustomed to eating a lot of sugar. This is a stepping stone to a better diet.

Say there is a cancer risk, obesity will kill them first.

The article has no mention of cancer. At all. What it instead does mention, is studies and a WHO warning that Splenda increases diabetes risk.

It also mentions the ADA was bribed into recommending potatoes to diabetes patients, the one thing those people shouldn't be eating.

This is a fraudulent organization claiming to improve public health, but in reality trading human lives for profit. It's despicable you're rushing to defend them with straw man arguments.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com