Me too. I know this is essentially his gig now, but I haven't seen anyone attack the science. If there's a reasonable refutation out there, I'm all ears.
Ray Peat addresses the science better than anyone I've read. He's a biology phd from University of Oregon with a specialization in biochemistry, physiology, and endocrinology. Many of his ideas are not the mainstream but everything he writes about is extensively researched and cited.
He has a number of articles on sugar but a good one to start with is Sugar Issues[0]. It can get a bit technical so I would recommend keeping wikipedia and google handy. It looks to have around 50-100 references for further investigation. Here's also one of his many radio interviews where he discuses sugar (starts in earnest with respect to sugar at around 14:35, but whole talk is great)[1].
Basically, sugars (glucose, fructose, sucrose, lactose) are healthy and protective for a wide variety of reasons - as long as they are able to be fully oxidized by the mitochondria, to produce carbon dioxide and a greater number of ATP. Many of the alleged "evils" of sugar are actually due to the polyunsaturated fats, which inhibit proper metabolism of sugar and damage cells in a variety of ways. One well established mechanism is by competing with glucose for oxidation, resulting in higher blood sugar levels. This is known as the Randall cycle (or glucose fatty acid cycle) and actually serves as the foundation for an as-of-yet unchallenged theory of type 2 diabetes.
I highly recommend reading ray peat, and listening to his interviews. His intelligence, recall, and ability to synthesize information to form coherent biological models across a variety of topics are all-together astounding. I honestly recommend all of his articles and interviews. It takes some time and re-readings to fully grasp the concepts he advances, but it is well worth it.
Googling 'Lustig criticism' gives you a good place to start. Though with nutritional science, everything is so far from consensus (and when there is a consensus, it's 20 years behind the science) that you should treat this as a jumping-off point to read the literature instead of an authoritative rebuttal.
Because I'm not a doctor or a biologist, so I need a few counterpoints as checks in order not to be blinded. It's just a quick check valve while I read more about the subject.
Also, "The Trouble with Fructose": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh4JBXaKnmA
Despite the baity titles, it's a good talk with real biochemistry.
Edit: better video added up top