Discrepancies and distortions of the reality - have we been screwed?

At 40:45 minute of the 2012 video of Dr Lustig you could hear that high glycaemic foods are not the same as insulin resistance. Based on the information I could hear from him so far I suggest that the insulin resistance develops due to fructose and its lipogenic properties, whereas glucose is good for us and as such the insulin secretion should not worry us. 

However, at 42:22 minute Dr Lustig said: 

"I am for getting insulin down, any way you can."

This was initiated with the question of the audience about the reduced glycaemic index by accompanied fat in the meal saying that insulin is the problem and they have to get the insulin down. He further said that insulin is the bad guy because it makes fat cells to store fat and it also causes the cell proliferation - typical for cancers. 

He then continues saying that there are two main approaches to bring the insulin down: to eat a low-carbohydrate diet, because glucose drives insulin up, or to reduce sugar intake to cut down the insulin resistance. I guess that this second part was again meant to be due to fructose moiety of the sugar. Nothing about fat, nothing about positive energy balance, nothing about the energy saturated muscle cells due to overeating and low physical activity which prevents the muscles to take in any more glucose - making the pancreas producing more insulin to get rid of the blood plasma glucose for any cost... 

So, is the insulin good or bad? Is glucose good or bad? Sometimes you hear Dr Lustig saying that it is a good guy, other times less so. It is always about how it fits his momentary picture he wants to draw. 

Another example. 

Going back to whether obesity is a problem or not, in another video at 5:20 he said that because 20% of obese people are metabolically normal, the obesity is associated with metabolic diseases but it is not a cause of them. This was supported by the diagram of 'normal' people who also get these problems such as hypertension, hyperinsulinemia, dementia, etc.

Pardon me? 

You could have read my objections against this picture and that the overweight category was left out. Now I would like to know, where the statistics of Dr Lustig stands when he tried to convince the audience that if 25 or 29% of diabetes was statistically found to be CAUSED by sugar availability, how about those remaining 75 or 79%? That was not explained and he stated that also. They had no idea, they did not examine it. They were just happy with that little picture of the whole complex mosaic and they presented it proudly like something the world has been waiting for and it will stay as a fact til the end of the days.  

On these two simple examples you can see that whatever fits the agenda, it is used the way it supports it, even if it is completely out of context and the facts are being skewed. 

I am not happy with that.