Wow, such good healthy debate.  I hadn't expected such as response; but, this kind of thing sure hits home when you chowing down on some fries or chips.

The reason I posted it, was because I heard the idea off of Paul Harvey's radio program (USA based).  I have certainly noticed lately, that many of the reports coming out are changing their terminology from "infection" to "toxic or toxins". (This is how Paul phrased it, also)

A chemical reaction based on the molecular makeup of the toxin and its interaction with other compounds within our bodies. 

I think the main idea, that heating these oils to high temperatures, is bad - is probably wise. 

I am all for consciencious acceptance of what we are doing to our bodies (and our children's bodies).  If we have health problems, you can almost bet that diet plays a major role.   

I find the same evidence of the older (80 plus) population, that are sharp as a whip and healthier than most 50 year olds. 

Since everything that happens in our bodies is a chemical reaction of some kind - changing the chemical makeup of oil's linoleic acid to HNE (a known toxin) is good science and good to know. 

It is similar to the health effects of enriched white flour which forms acrylamides (known toxins) when heated at high temperatures. 

But, I can't understand how you can just right off the report Reader?  Unless you have evidence to the contrary - the science that is published is God, right!

That's what they say all the time about prion science.  The other side has no published evidence to support it, therefore it can't be.  (by the way, this is a false statement).  I hope we as consumers won't be as blind as the politicians etc. are that are cramming this "infectious prion" hypothesis down our throats.  

Getting the funding to support "alternative approaches" is a real challenge.  Alot of the philanthropists out there seem to want a return on their investment (charity).