We knew from 1908 to 1936. Over 10000 animal model and 100 human model studies linking 10% sugar 3% salt diet linked to metabolic disorder and dementia.

Careful, the sugar lobby, and their political pets, will come for you after posting this.

Get ready for a wall of Narcissistic smirks in suits.

[removed]

[removed]

No it isn't.

Just smoke your weed and stop trying to justify it. Its fun, thats justification enough ffs

Yes, it is. In fact, it’s the only logical conclusion and is the entire point of the article. This is getting tiresome.

>The only reason to avoid learning the truth about them is that they already trust them

You keep writing this, but that is not a logical conclusion.

[removed]

Deductive reasoning. These are people close to them (friends and colleagues). The only reason to avoid learning the truth about them is that they already trust them. If they don’t trust them, then finding out the truth would only further confirm that they are right not to do so. This is basic human psychology.

And? That doesn't mean they find people trustworthy to begin with.

From the article:

“…most people stated that they wanted to avoid finding out that one of their colleagues or family members was a Stasi informant and that viewing those files would impact their ability to trust others.”

No, it does not.

I’m not making any assumptions. The article makes this abundantly clear.

You sit around making assumptions from your point of view as if you matter regarding why these people chose to do something.

Thinking…

They hope to be able to warn earth better about big scary solar events in terms of time of arrival and intensity and duration by looking at how [bumpy] and [sloping/muddy?] the road is between here and the sun. They’re almost looking up the sun’s driveway with the PSP.

You never heard the expression a butcher that judges his own meat? Its a colloquial in dutch.

Because the article says they are deliberately choosing ignorance. The only way that makes sense is if they already trust them. If they didn’t trust them, they’d be more likely to want to confirm their distrust by getting more evidence that supports it.

But why the assumption they believing them to be trustworthy?

I’m the problem. It’s me.

Basically hyperglycemia is really harmful for your health, and a sedentary body less able to maintain tight blood sugar control over time causes significant increases to your risk for cardiovascular disease.

Parents who read parenting books tend to be better parents because they're the type to read parenting books.

They get a lot of sun and vitamin D plays a big role according to science

Well that clears it right up

Dude implied that coffee is good for your liver. I asked for a source and I am aggressive?