Dr. Robert Lustig

They also infiltrated the National Institute of Dental Research, NIDR, their study sections and their executive committee to take money away from nutrition research for dental health and put it toward a caries vaccine. A what? A dental cavities vaccine. How's that cavities vaccine working for you?

We have all of the data in their own words to demonstrate that they knew exactly what they were doing. This is not a hallucination. This is hardcore fact, and we've published this. And we now have a center at UCSF devoted to understanding the corporate determinants of health.

We have all of the data in their own words to demonstrate that they knew exactly what they were doing. This is not a hallucination. This is hardcore fact, and we've published this. And we now have a center at UCSF devoted to understanding the corporate determinants of health.

Correct. All true. Now, you could say that's correlation, not causation, but we actually have the causation. We have the data. We have it in mechanistic terms. We have it in clinical interventional efforts. We have it in societal efforts. There's a method for determining proof. That doesn't need randomized control trials. It's called econometric analysis.

Correct. All true. Now, you could say that's correlation, not causation, but we actually have the causation. We have the data. We have it in mechanistic terms. We have it in clinical interventional efforts. We have it in societal efforts. There's a method for determining proof. That doesn't need randomized control trials. It's called econometric analysis.

This is what we have for, for instance, climate change. There's no control group for climate change, but we still know it's true. This is what we have for tobacco and lung cancer. You know, you don't have naive people start smoking. That would be illegal, immoral, get you thrown in jail. But we still know that tobacco causes lung cancer.

This is what we have for, for instance, climate change. There's no control group for climate change, but we still know it's true. This is what we have for tobacco and lung cancer. You know, you don't have naive people start smoking. That would be illegal, immoral, get you thrown in jail. But we still know that tobacco causes lung cancer.

We know that football trauma causes chronic traumatic encephalopathy. None of these have control groups, but we know it's true through econometric analysis. This is a method of using natural history data over time to be able to determine proximate cause.

We know that football trauma causes chronic traumatic encephalopathy. None of these have control groups, but we know it's true through econometric analysis. This is a method of using natural history data over time to be able to determine proximate cause.

And we have that for sugar and diabetes, and we have it for sugar and heart disease, and we have it for sugar and fatty liver disease, and of course we have it for sugar and tooth decay. We're working on sugar and cancer and sugar and dementia. We're not there yet.

And we have that for sugar and diabetes, and we have it for sugar and heart disease, and we have it for sugar and fatty liver disease, and of course we have it for sugar and tooth decay. We're working on sugar and cancer and sugar and dementia. We're not there yet.

So let's do the sugared soft drinks first.

So let's do the sugared soft drinks first.

They are really bad. If you consume one sugared beverage per day, your risk for diabetes goes up by 29%. Wow. Okay. And that's if you have one. If you have two, 58%.

They are really bad. If you consume one sugared beverage per day, your risk for diabetes goes up by 29%. Wow. Okay. And that's if you have one. If you have two, 58%.

So this is a big problem. So, you know, that's demonstrating its toxicity at, you know, shall we say medium dose. You know, at low dose, you can handle it. But as soon as you go above that dose, it's a problem. And we have the data for it. And all of these are factored in. These are all econometric analyses. We've shown that sugar is a proximate cause of diabetes.

So this is a big problem. So, you know, that's demonstrating its toxicity at, you know, shall we say medium dose. You know, at low dose, you can handle it. But as soon as you go above that dose, it's a problem. And we have the data for it. And all of these are factored in. These are all econometric analyses. We've shown that sugar is a proximate cause of diabetes.

Whenever sugar availability changes in any country, diabetes prevalence changes three years later. And we've also done what's known as advanced Markov modeling where we go into the future and show that when sugar consumption goes down in any country, diabetes levels change and reduce three years later.

Whenever sugar availability changes in any country, diabetes prevalence changes three years later. And we've also done what's known as advanced Markov modeling where we go into the future and show that when sugar consumption goes down in any country, diabetes levels change and reduce three years later.

So it's a three-year window between the change in the diet and the change in the metabolic health consequences. We have those data. And the fact that they work both on the way up and on the way down is like, you know, take it to the bank. Now, that's for the sugared beverages. You asked me about diet beverages. I've got one here. Let's look at it. All right. I've covered up the logos.