Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A new study claims a warmer climate is associated with higher rates of diabetes. But even if the authors are right, obesity, diet, age and heredity remain the dominant factors.
Diabetes incidence and glucose intolerance prevalence increase with higher outdoor temperature
Lisanne L Blauw, N Ahmad Aziz, Martijn R Tannemaat, C Alexander Blauw, Anton J de Craen, Hanno Pij, Patrick C N Rensen
Abstract
Objective Rising global temperatures might contribute to the current worldwide diabetes epidemic, as higher ambient temperature can negatively impact glucose metabolism via a reduction in brown adipose tissue activity. Therefore, we examined the association between outdoor temperature and diabetes incidence in the USA as well as the prevalence of glucose intolerance worldwide.
Research design and methods Using meta-regression, we determined the association between mean annual temperature and diabetes incidence during 1996–2009 for each US state separately. Subsequently, results were pooled in a meta-analysis. On a global scale, we performed a meta-regression analysis to assess the association between mean annual temperature and the prevalence of glucose intolerance.
Results We demonstrated that, on average, per 1°C increase in temperature, age-adjusted diabetes incidence increased with 0.314 (95% CI 0.194 to 0.434) per 1000. Similarly, the worldwide prevalence of glucose intolerance increased by 0.170% (95% CI 0.107% to 0.234%) per 1°C rise in temperature. These associations persisted after adjustment for obesity.
Conclusions Our findings indicate that the diabetes incidence rate in the USA and prevalence of glucose intolerance worldwide increase with higher outdoor temperature.
…
Read more: http://drc.bmj.com/content/5/1/e000317
The data seems quite noisy. For example, consider the following graph (Table 1 in the study) of diabetes incidence vs change in temperature.
The state of South Carolina (average annual temperature 63F) shows a strong correlation between diabetes and temperature, but the state of Louisiana (average annual temperature 69F) shows a strong negative correlation. Arizona (average annual temperature 75F) also shows a negative correlation.
In addition, the impact of the factors the study attempted to adjust for is likely significantly larger than the impact demonstrated by the study.
For example, the following, from a 2007 study of body mass index vs diabetes, shows a strong relationship between body mass and diabetes, ranging from below 5% for skinny people to around 25% for very fat people – a far more pronounced effect than the small difference claimed by the climate study above.
Note the substantial disagreement between the two studies in the graph above, of the impact of obesity on diabetes rate.
I’m not saying the authors are necessarily wrong, they appear to have made a credible attempt to tease out a small effect from a noisy data set. But even if they are right, factors other than temperature are far more significant predictors of whether someone is likely to suffer from diabetes.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Medicine is joining the fields of science corrupted by climatism funding. Even if weather affects human health, it is nonsensical to try to treat the weather rather than the disease. Now family doctors are being pushed to promote climatism as a health concern aided and abetted by IPCC.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/07/10/climate-medicine/
If I am ever lectured by my physician about ‘climatechangeglobalwarmingdenierism’ I’ll walk out and never visit him/her again.
My family doctor (I do love that man) is pretty much disgusted with the requirements the government is levying on his practice. I doubt that I won’t hear any of this from him any more than I heard about gun control or the voluntary euthanasia that the government was pushing a few years ago.
Interesting study. Data from 49 States and Puerto Rico
2 questions
Where is the 50th state data? (or did it skew the report?)
Where is the world data? (Worldwide diets vary and subsequent susceptibility to Diabetes varies)
the study has made a classic statistical mistake. correlation is not causation,
people are also getting older as temperatures are increasing. does this mean that global warming causes aging as well as diabetes.
I think this is another in the same series : If a dog has 4 broken legs, and you command him to jump, and he doesn’t, it confirms that if a dog has 4 broken limbs, he can’t hear.
Where did they find the extra grant money?
The Old Man
You are spot on.
It is –
“Look, we can link something or other, loosely, to Gore-bull warming. Send money. Much money.
We can save the world.”
Auto, hoping that Donald J. Trump really can drain the swamp . . . .
I’m sorry but this is not a medical study, this is junk propaganda. More to come.
Probably Medical Malpractice.
Let’s sue them and get some of that Gov. (our) money back
If there is anything to this, they should not be looking at diabetes incidence with a 1 deg C rise.. There should be a clear correlation between altitude and diabetes, with little at the poles and lots at the equator. If you look at the diets of these different regions, you find that carbohydrates and diabetes probably have the higher correlation. Puerto Rico probably has a lot of poor who cannot afford meats as much as they can starches and sugars.
Indeed, and the BMI is a terrible way to assess ‘obesity’.
#
“increase with” : that has no power to indicate causation.
More likely glucose intolerance caused by diet changes.
yeah what i was thinking
run the states of poverty/low income/junkfood over that and?
i suspect the high diabetic areas coincide
I think you’ve nailed it. The warmer the weather, the more likely it is that soft drinks will be consumed.
What about Louisiana?
I don’t believe Louisiana is going to get consumed.
Illinois is missing
Alan McIntire
March 21, 2017 at 6:12 am said:
Yeah, I thought of that one too, but I’m wondering whehter the oversight is even more basically ridiculous, … like population density is greater in warmer climates, and so, duh, of course you are going to notice a higher statistical occurrence in those regions where there are MORE people living! … than in cooler climates, where FEWER PEOPLE LIVE.
Sweet tea, too!
But I suspect part of the reason is that older folk tend to move to warmer climes.
Soooooo many variables not controlled for here. Junk science deluxe.
What people are susceptible to this type of nonsense? What scares me is that those who advance this propaganda have control of our public school systems. No wonder they are handing out high school diplomas to kids with 8th grade reading proficiency. Great strategy! Dumb them down and then baffle them with bullshite .
Yesterday it was 62, today it’s 63, and I’m thinking beer and barbeque. I’ll just have to hope I don’ t pass out tomorrow with my climate-caused diabetis. Been there, done that only it was wintertime. Go figure. Was it the change from 30 to 31degrees.
It couldn’t have been the 8 lbs. of Christmas candy I ate.
I’m not sure if the authors took this into account, but sometime within the first half of the study period, the ADA lowered the threshold for diagnosis of diabetes. Anyone more knowledgeable about this change want to chime in?
Really don’t know too much about it, except that about 8-10 years ago a pre-diabetic group started to show up in tabulated data for health care providers. It’s pretty common for people in the health field to “broaden” any definition of a condition, since the more people that are impacted the more money they can grab. Look at what’s happening in mental health.
That “pre-diabetic” thing just cracks me up. Forty five years ago when I became diabetic, you were LOUDLY chastised for saying “pre-diabetic”. You were either diabetic or not, just like you were pregnant or not. Now there are commercials and a website to see if you are “pre-diabetic”. IF this was only to alert people to the need to change their habits and eat better and exercise more, then it might be useful. However, odds are at some point “treatment” will be thrown in. Based on TV advertising, one generally sees commercials about the disease or condition, then later the treatment (like non-24, HPV and cancer). If the pattern holds, there will be a “treatment” announced.
Pre-diabetic is an important distinction. People who are pre-diabetic are likely to become diabetic, but they have a great chance at reversing the trend through diet and exercise.
I went to the “doihaveprediabetes” site: This based on age, sex (women have a less chance than men? I’d like to see the research on that one), gestational diabetes ever diagnosed, high blood pressure, physical activity, relative with diabetes, weight status. (Note: IF I wasn’t diabetic, I would score too LOW to be diagnosed with prediabetes.) This is nothing we don’t already know. Labelling it as a “disease” or “condition” is as foolish as dry eye or peeing too much. It’s worthless. It’s nothing but “risk” factors—like higher temperatures will now be.
Sheri — without going into too much detail, a web site is not going to diagnose diabetes or pre-diabetes. The distinction is based on a blood test. The website is trying to address your risk factors as to whether or not you could have undiagnosed diabetes. Their point on the gender question is that men are more likely to have undiagnosed diabetes because they tend to go to the doctor less.
They could have (should have) just asked how frequently you visit the doctor. I go much more frequently than my wife and I can’t beg loud enough to ask her to get a periodic blood test. All that being said, I have had two brothers with diabetes — one of who died at age fifty due to complications from diabetes (after going blind and having several digits amputated.) He was a poster child for medical non-compliance.
There could be such a thing as Pre-Pregnant so Pre-Diabetic isn’t a far stretch
Pre-Pregnant, those who plan on becoming Pregnant
Pre-Diabetic, those who plan on becoming Diabetic
locanbona: Yes, they can use an A1C and assume that if it is elevated you’re heading for diabetes. IF they test on a regular basis (which you can do if you want by buying the test over the counter—the scale may be slightly different that what labs do) and the numbers keep going up, that’s a problem. If they stay level and are not significantly out of range and your health is good, no reason for panic. I fear the medical community gets a bit crazy trying to fit everyone into the same mold.
Annual blood tests can show one elevated blood sugar (fasting), but again, it’s one result. I’m not sure I agree that frequent doctor visits are good—unless you just mean an annual physical and blood work. You would think by now the A1C would be part of the panel since doctors so love that test.
There are definitely poster children for non-compliance out there. I knew several.
Sherri — it wasn’t really my point about frequent visits to the doctor. Your citation for “doihavediabetes.com” had the assumption that men are more likely to have undiagnosed diabetes because they make fewer trips to the doctor. I thought that reasoning was specious. Instead of making it gender specific, they could have just made the point “if you are over fifty do you have an annual checkup” or something like that.
Assuming reasonable health, once per year should be fine.
Some of that is being forced on them, though ‘evidence based medicine’ and some of it is peer pressure and some of it is that physicians are just as susceptible to fads as the rest of us.
Yes, in 2000 they changed the criteria for diagnosing diabetes (and started developing a category of “pre-diabetes”. I believe it may have also changed in 1991.
http://journal.diabetes.org/diabetescare/FullText/Supplements/DiabetesCare/Supplement400/B5.asp
The reason is because of better, less expensive diagnostic tools and better information as to what happens in diabetic patients as they age.
It’s still over-reacting. Medicine does not in any way understand what and why diabetes causes bad outcomes. (Ignoring any disease generally has bad outcomes, so those who ignore the condition will likely have bad outcomes.) Many diabetics live for decades with no complications, some live a decade or less. Both can have identical blood A1C for the whole period. Blood sugar is only ONE component of many. This is like saying CO2 is the thermostat for the planet.
Sheri — medicine knows a lot more about diabetes than you give them credit for. Yes, it is only one of many aspects of your body which can go wrong, but it is a very serious health risk right now. Diabetes is more about how your body regulates blood sugar than it is about the absolute measure of blood sugar. More significantly, like every subject, there is a ton of bad information out there which muddles the knowledge base (thank you Dr. Oz.)
Someone should run a simple rank correlation between the states’ average temperature and incidence of diabetes. Non-parametric would avoid any data assumptions. Just glancing at the various states with Idaho and SD being near highest raises questions.
Several years ago Medical science considered a glucose level of 140 to be normal. That was lowered to 120. Some want it even lower. When they vote again to raise the level to 160 I’ll run through the streets yelling
They voted and lowered the acceptable glucose level from 140 to 120. I’m waiting for the new electorate to rise it to 160 and then I’ll be cured. Medical science in action!
Oh For F’s S!!!
What a load of nonsense!
YET ANOTHER pseudo-scientific study that has started with the specific aim of blaming AGW for a problem, and – quelle surprise! – it has manged to find and adjust data to provide “proof”.
In the bin pronto.
Ian,
The objective is to get grant money. Lots of money.
But – yes, “In the bin pronto.”
Auto
There seems to be a significant increase in diabetes and the weather /climate has nothing to do with it. Something must be amiss. Diet/exercise/genetics do play a role but something ‘environmental’ on a widespread basis is up. We are looking at something that interferes with various organ function. Is it something in the food supply or water? How can anyone trust the EPA, FDA or any other 3 letter agency nowadays?
I’ve noticed that Big Pharma is advertising their diabetes products all too frequently. Something is up.
for decades i kept saying that the HUGE push to fake sugar replacer was NOT smart!
I’m pleased to be proven right at last.
thebody doesnt KNOW whats coming real or fake sugars
so it senses sweet and produces insulin
no sugar and the insulin is there but nothing to work on.
rinse repeat endlessly over a period of time and?
obesity and diabetes rises.
Yes, my saying oz,
The body is no Chem lab: insulin is produced whenever the tongue says ‘sweet’!
oz and johann,
If any of the common artificial sweeteners affect insulin production, it should be simple to verify that experimentally. Have you got a reference to such a study?
BINGO. All the fat people in my office drink diet coke/pepsi. And they are all diabetic in all likelihood. I am probably 15lbs over but never eat fake sugar and my blood work has always been very good. Genetics to blame for some of it, but… I also eat real butter.
This is likely most affected by lifestyle. In my family alone, my Dad had late-onset diabetes and controlled it completely for 20 years by diet (went from 220lbs to 170lbs). Three current family members have late onset and opted for insulin and keep eating like pigs. They haven’t lost a pound and make no effort to reduce dietary triggers.
Late onset diabetes cannot be managed by insulin injections. It needs a pill, such as Metformin.
Juan, there’s not so much reliable studies on nutrition, eg
https://www.google.at/search?client=ms-android-samsung&q=Finlandia+multiple+generations+double+blind+on+healthy+dietary&sa=X&ved=0
That’s why that much ‘meta studies’.
Concise
https://www.google.at/search?client=ms-android-samsung&biw=360&bih=264&ei=pirSWLDNDKrg6ATP4InoAg&q=Finlandia+multiple+generations+double+blind+++study++on+healthy+dietary&oq=Finlandia+multiple+generations+double+blind+++study++on+healthy+dietary&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.
Global warming can cause one’s brain to swell – just an example: Micky Mann…
And subsequently heads will explode!
at last- the explanation for Excess Summer Deaths.
Must there always be a conspiracy? Can’t it ever, ever be something else?
“Must there always be a conspiracy?”
If there’s major corruption in “high places”, then; Yes . .
I don’t equate corruption with the “c” word.
Thanks Sheri! Must not be conspiracy.
There is great competition between the food producers. When a producer gains the advantage by adding more sweeteners, other manufacturers must follow suit.
Therefore, it’s us consumers mainly responsible for the supply on the shelves.
John, the reason diabetes has increased is because people are living longer. And diabetes is better treated. In the past many people with diabetes would have died after a few years and been removed from the statistics.
Have type 2 diabetes. Under control when I lose weight, control diet, and exercise. Not so much when I do the opposite. We already know all of that. Main use of what seems like a waste of money study will be clanging on about the social cost of carbon.
Another peer reviewed nothing burger to be quoted as real science by a politician.
You are nearly there Troe when you mention car -bon. The root cause of the majority of type 2 diabetes is excess ingestion of car-BOHYDRATES.
All carbs are sugar. Eat no more than 30 grams of carbs a day and stuff yourself with good protein.
Red meat, eggs, cheese, a avocados oily fish and bingo your diabetes disappears in a month or so.
Mind you big Parma will be upset.
The cause of diabetes is unknown.
Au contraire, the human and all other material life forms have redox based electrochemical mechanisms. It is blood sugar and, more particularly, the rate of rise of blood sugar (initially at the liver tissue level, then later at muscle and fat tissue levels) that triggers pancreatic secretion of insulin, modified by other peptide hormones and receptor regulation. Cells protect themselves, within limits, to receptor overload by down-regulating the receptor, since the receptor function is related to binding of the ligand, protein conformation changes, cell membrane permeability change (Na/K, Ca/Mg) that are chemically transduced to other chemical signals, internal and external.
I have yet to see a paper demonstrating that ‘sweet’ at the tongue has an effect, directly, on blood sugar or insulin. I can see an indirect effect, via the brain, though. Sweet = fruit = need to get ready for digesting food. When the anticipated sugar doesn’t arrive in the gut, I suspect that effect gets blunted.
Now add to this that ‘obese’ folk get told to reduce their caloric intake. Well, guess what, drinking ‘diet’ soda can do that; but it isn’t guaranteed. Never mind that moving that bigger body itself requires a larger muscle mass to do it and maintaining body mass is a survival mechanism; so it is no surprise to me that ‘diet and exercise’ don’t really do very much overall. For diabetics in particular, though, that advise is more likely to be sound for that particular individual and still may not change things much in the end.
… they appear to have made a credible attempt to tease out a small effect from a noisy data set.
A vanishingly small effect from a VERY noisy data set.
They have skills.
“The number of adults worldwide affected by diabetes has quadrupled since 1980 to 422 million, the World Health Organisation has warned in a report on World Health Day. Nearly one in 11 people are now affected by the disease, with obesity and unhealthy eating included in the factors driving the rise.”
https://www.google.at/amp/s/amp.ibtimes.co.uk/world-health-day-2016-facts-figures-statistics-about-diabetes-1553515
_____________________________________________
No correlation whatsoever with temperatures / CO2. Which says:
Sugar industry + WHO joined the green scam train!
It’s Twinkies all the way down.
And what about “indoor” temperature?
Let’s follow the logic. More people stay indoors under air conditioning. Most people keep the temperature under 80F inside. The human body then uses more energy to stay warm which triggers the desire to eat carbs. Indoor people load up on carbs to stay warmer inside then go outside where it is very warm and get diabetes. See, it all follows.
Exactly my first thought. How many people are actually exposed to the temperatures they are using? Air conditioned home to air conditioned car to air conditioned office and back again.
It wouldn’t surprise me if people in the US were now colder on average than 10 or 20 years ago.
I know I freeze in my office year ’round. I am starting to really hate AC. I’d rather be hot. Every where you go it is cold indoors in the summer. And living in MN i get plenty of cold….don’t need it all summer too!!
Psych meds plus frankenfoods makes people suffer from an endless hot flash. They love to crank AC and make us normals pull on our sweaters. I also notice the “hot flash” crows are typically overweight.
A high indoor temperature prevents metabolic diseases. I sure this kind of correlation could exist directly because cold raises blood pressure via closing extreme blood circulation, or by correlating with poor people living in uninsulated houses on bad diet.
This kind of correlations often disappear when you take other dependent variables into account. If you don’t, you are doing lousy science.
I’m going over and put another log in the wood stove!!
“Your comment is awaiting moderation:
OK with me, there’s already enough literatur on that topic:
https://www.google.at/search?q=WHO+denies+connexion+sugars+obesity+blames+fats&oq=WHO+denies+connexion+sugars+obesity+blames++fats&aqs=chrome.
I’m sure there is no difference between fat made or sugar made obesity.
There isn’t. However, for some reason beyond my fathoming, modern science seems to think one’s pancreas should only kick out insulin a couple of times a week or it’s overworked. So, you eat kale and drink water except on Sunday and Wednesday and you’re in great shape. I have no idea when pancreases stopped working 71% of the time, but it seems they did.
For clarification, the argument against sugar (and HONEY and FRUIT) is it makes your pancreas work too hard.
Claim: Starting an opinion piece with the word “claim” is telegraphing the author’s bias.
I notice you didn’t try to defend the study, just attack the author.
How typical.
But it is a claim.
What else is it then?
When we are in favour it is: New research reveals…
When we don’t like it it’s a claim.
Most of statistical health studies are utter krapp. So claim.
Tim Hammond:
You ask
I answer, it is a report of an unreasonable adoption of an unreasonable assumption.
The actual statement you query says
The study may have detected a correlation between two data sets but it is not reasonable to assume the correlation indicates anything. It is especially silly to assume the correlation indicates or suggests or implies one parameter is “associated” with the other in the absence of any demonstrated mechanism that would provide the putative association.
The claim of association is very unreasonable.
Richard
i thought maybe you’d had some crisis, richard. good to see you.
i couldn’t believe you’d boldly instigate and then immediately retreat.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/11/uh-oh-g-20-poised-to-signal-retreat-from-paris-climate-deal-pledge/comment-page-1/#comment-2448442
as emperor of the catwalk, doncha wanna rock your wardrobe?
They must be convinced that it must be due to all the CO2 bubbles in the sodas folks consume in their Big Gulps. Somehow, I think it’s more related to the high fructose corn syrup therein. Another reason was the ill-conceived push to go fat-free, because the fat was replaced by sugars, in order to avoid an unappetizing mouth-feel.
BTW, Since the USA and Mexico are #1 and #2 for both diabetes as well as soda consumption, why not throw Mexican States into the comparison as well? They offer a wide variety of desert, highland temperate and tropical climates.
High fructose corn syrup is basically the same as sugar. Try drinking a “classic” soda with sugar for a month, in volume, then do the same with the corn syrup one. Your weight gain should be similar.
It is the CO2 bubbles I think because diet sodas are claimed to cause weight gain, too.
Agreed that fat-free was a bad idea.
It’s amazing how much weight I’ve lost now that I limit my Cokes to a single one of those 8 Oz Mexican ones instead of a Large Fountain drink plus a refill.
Of course, the comment about the CO2 bubbles is wholly in jest.
My husband changed to diet Coke when he figured out he could have more M&M’s!
(He’s lost interest in those now, so please no fits over the M&M’s.)
“High fructose corn syrup is basically the same as sugar.”
______________________________
Sugar consists of glucose + fructose.
– glucose gets converted into sheer energy / body + brain*
– fructose, by the liver, gets converted into body fat
*suspected to further amnesia: an overreaching on ‘natural reserves’.
I find that the natural foods people agree with you. However, actual research doesn’t back that up. HFCS is 42% or 55% fructose and the remainder is glucose and water. Table sugar is 50/50 glucose and fructose. Honey is approximately 50/50 like sucrose is. From these ratios, it looks like all these are very, very similar in glucose/fructose content.
ALL excess sugars get converted into fat in the liver, whether glucose or fructose. Fructose is metabolized in the liver, but it only converts to fat if you eat too much. Same thing happens with foods metabolized anywhere in the body.
MICE and rats gained more weight studies with HFCS but I’m not a rodent. Most studies showing weight gain are very limited in scope and apply only to a very specific set of circumstances. Often, huge quantities are fed to the animals or a huge percentage. This does not reflect reality.
Warmer weather (if indeed that is the case) + higher CO2 concentration -> more inexpensive food of the carbohydrate variety + sedentary live styles (TV and computers) -> fat people with a host of medical problems, diabetes being the quickest to become visible.
I am skeptical of the quality of this science.
Why don’t the states line up north to south vis a vis the the temp gradient. Stupid. It didn’t work so they….. adjusted it. The Adjustocene. How about adjusting for old fat retirees from ND going to AZ. Here is an experiment. Round up a 1000 diabetics from SC and move them to ND and see how many y are cured. what about Mexico or Australia or Singapore
It is likely that a significant contributor to what is commonly referred to as an increase in temperature in the U. S. is nothing more than the urban heat island coupled with cherry picking by “climate scientists” who find it advantageous to focus on temperature records from those locales. It is also likely that type 2 diabetes is associated with the urban life style, particularly the absence of required of physical activity. So the common factor may be something related to “urban”, which is not compatible with the political needs of the activists behind the creation and exploitation of our daily dose of crisis. So this line of inquiry, as promising as it is, will not find a public patron.
Data from US states only for this conclusion? No comparison with incident rates from countries closer to equator and hotter and farther from the equator and colder? It probably would fall flatter than this study.
I was thinking something similar; why not see if the incidence of diabetes correlates with latitude, that being the proxy for temperature? How much taxpayer money was spent on this study? If you made the cut at 30 degrees of latitude, would the population below 30 have a greater rate of incidence than the population above 30?
I thought body temperature was self-regulating. Did all the people in the study have fevers?
This study is questionable on so many levels. The one that strikes me the most is the use of average state temps, while exposure to outdoor temps by the people would have been during the day, not when sleeping. 2nd issue.. no attempt to handle demographic changes (other than age) over the reported period, or for that matter, distribution of the population over,the state geographically. 3) Period ended 2009? Why then?
Genetic background and living habbits affect a lot, so anyone not segmenting via ethnicity, gender, bmi, smoking, diet etc does badly.
The author may not be wrong? In that case there must be enormously high levels of diabetes in the tropics, n’est pas?
In Amazonia. And not in Fairbanks?
Perhaps the most ridiculous claim for what CAGW causes. Go to the store & look at the ingredients list. For ant pre-packaged food ( ie anything that isn’t fresh veggies / fruit / meat / nuts etc) & you will see that almost everything has sugar / sweeteners added to it. Did the authors even consider that with time, use sweeteners has increased? and that might be having an effect? You are what you eat … garbage in … sickness out.
Ah yes, the miraculous health properties of fresh things. But cook them up in a dish and all that disappears…if you then package it an sell it of course, not if you prepare the meal yourself, because then the magic “i prepared it myself” factor kicks in.
And since when is sugar, one of the most vital ingredients for life, “garbage”? Or do you think your body can tell the difference between a molecule of glucose that’s in your blood if its come from Macdonalds rather than an apple?
Man made chemicals bad.
Nature made chemicals good.
Do some research on sugar & sweeteners – regardless of source – and effects on your biochemistry , brain function, energy system & microbiome … and how all this relates to chronic disease , like diabetes, amongst others. Then figure out how much sugar & sweeteners you are eating.
Your choice – eat what your want – but your biochemistry is complicated and no, sugar and sweeteners are not ” one of the most vital ingredients for life”.
Fresh means ‘direct’ from the field.
Ready made means: + flavor enhancer; + sugar + salt for longer shelf life.
Everyone’s own choice.
Fresh also could say:
Better from Burger King or Steakhouse than from Walmart.
Also depending on the wallet.
We were overly optimistic to believe that electing Trump would cure the deep social disease of which climate obsession is a mere symptom. We are very likely to see this coup attempt against the President succeed and the climate madness will come back with a vengeance.
We are fighting the coup. Primary any ostensibly on our side who join the plotters.
Hunter, no chance of pushing Trump off this. His other policies are tougher nuts. The G20 meeting in Germany removed climate from the agenda because of Trump. This without a whimper is a ‘tell’ that Europe is relieved. They see that with energy cheaper in US than half the cost elsewhere in the world without climate change foolishness and the EU neomarxbrothers’ rules taxes and regulations, America is on its way to produce an economy that would be the coup de grace for even China. Also, idiotic papers like this total joke show that climate science his heading for a revolution. Trump is going to make climate science great again, too.
German and Japanese industry are already beginning to invest in US and that is only the beginning. They may be convinced to build their new HQs in Detroit and other urban centres needing renewal. Trump is going to change the whole world because it will have to change.
The next election will be a landslide and, if the Dems don’t get it soon a Conservative dynasty will ensue for a generation while Dems are walking back to the right. I have been fairly good at seeing this kind of thing through ‘tells’. I predicted the next election based on whether the Dems would replace Nancy Pelosi with a young upstart. They chose to stay the NWO BO course and to grieve the loss to Trump for the next cycle. Trump is already campaigning AND giving life to the stock market.
Hmm…I eat cakes on the sofa in winter and fish with salad in summer before embarking on bracing hikes. Doesn’t quite chime somehow…
Demographic changes are leading to a dramatic increase in diabetes. link
We are getting older, our lifestyles are changing. Almost everything about the population is changing in a way that will increase diabetes.
If we try to eliminate anthropogenic CO2 we will create more impoverished people. Those with diabetes will be more likely to die. link
The idea that reducing CO2 will reduce diabetes, and deaths therefrom, is risible.
Breaking news: Living on Earth increases overall risk of developing diabetes.