[norraad]

..ok, listen up, if you've ever been involved in these studies, you "know" the outcome depends on whose paying for it.

It's always follow the money.

For instance, the whole fake green movement is based on a "study" done by USC that "proved" greenhouse gases were because of r-12.

The "study" was paid for by Dupont whose patent on r-12 was about to run out.

[Mase]

I've been involved in lots of studies. You? I understand that some studies are conducted to find the desired outcome rather than the truth. But all that doesn't matter now, does it? You claimed that HFCS interferes with the hormones that mediate satiation. I assume that you believe this does not occur when consuming regular old table sugar (sucrose). Otherwise, why would you even respond? So, that being so, how is glucose and fructose from hydrolyzed HFCS different from the glucose and fructose in sucrose? Wouldn't they have to be different for one (HFCS) to "interfere" with hormones while the other (sucrose) does not?

I eagerly await your explanation that isn't tainted by corporate or government money.

[Toddsterpatriot]

For instance, the whole fake green movement is based on a "study" done by USC that "proved" greenhouse gases were because of r-12.

You're not confusing CFCs destroying the ozone layer with the recent green house gas fiasco, are you?

The "study" was paid for by Dupont whose patent on r-12 was about to run out.

You have a copy of that patent? Or are you making stuff up?

[Old Professer]

That was the ozone hole