Why would I be extrapolating that sugar needs it's fiber with it
Sugar doesn't need "its" fibre, if you mean that the sugar and fibre have to come from the same source. So for instance you could eat a load of bran flakes and a glass of apple juice to much the same effect on sugar absorption as you would by eating apples with an equivalent proportion of sugar/fibre.
This is because dietary fibre forms a sort of gel-like mass that holds water and various solutes (like sugars), thereby slowing absorption. It's not like the sugar in an apple can only be slowed by the fibre in the apple because it's... I dunno, chemically bonded to it.
Sugar is uniquely digested.
Erm. Can I remind you that you are talking to a biological scientist here, and - FYI - I have taught carbohydrate, lipid and protein metabolism at degree level so I'm not exactly unfamiliar with the area. It's hard to know how to really process that statement. It's so vague it's essentially impossible for me to draw any useful meaning from, but it sounds an awful lot like misguided waffle.
If say a vitamin has the same or similar uniqueness of having to be digested in a specific place and then the refined version no longer being digested there, that could obviously be a problem or could not be a problem.
Okay, I increasingly feel that you don't really understand what you're talking about. It's a strangely familiar feeling.
You literally said this... And it's a HORRIBLE idea that a completely inept public health body would ever consider.
Ah yes. Here we go again: Phoenixmgs thinks he knows better than everyone else because he saw a YouTube vid.
Consuming sugar in the quantities the average person consumes sugar is poison. It's the cause of the majority of disease today.
Random hyperbolic statement warning!
