Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to sci.med.nutrition,sci.agriculture,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Soy vs Cow
"Doug Freese" > wrote in message news > > "TC" > wrote in message > oups.com... >> >> I've yet to see anyone show weston price to be wrong. The >> quality of >> science will overwhelm the quantity any day. > > And Bush has never lied to us. Wanna go hunting with Cheney? ==================== Better that than a drive with teddy 'burb' kennedy.... > > -DF > > |
Posted to sci.med.nutrition,sci.agriculture,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Soy vs Cow
Doug Freese wrote: > "TC" > wrote in message > oups.com... > > you are no different, except that all you do is opininate. You never > > back it up with anything. you are as bad a troll as we see around > > here. > > Seems you forgot to answer the questions below. Maybe because each of > the below are above reproach, and each group thinks your position on > nutrition is flat out silly if not imbecilic? You hide behind a dentist > turned nutritionist because he sees the same ghosts behind the trees as > you do. Talk about birds of feather. > > -DF I'll answer your questions if you answer mine. > > > > >> > >> Let's play for a minute. I want to how deep your paranoia reall is. > >> > >> Yes or no, are all the contributors to the Harvard School Of Public > >> Health on the take? No. > >> > >> Yes or no, are all the members of the Center for Science in the > >> Public > >> Interest on the take? No. > >> > >> Yes or no, are all the members of the Amercian Academy of Pediatics > >> on > >> the Take? No. Only about 75 to 80% of research in the US is paid for by industry. That is not *all*, just *most* of all science. That also does not mean that all scientists who work on papers funded by industry are, as you put it, "on the take". But it certainly raises questions about the reason why the research is undertaken in the first place, then it raises questions regarding the collection and interpretation of the data. Was all bias removed from the process? Or was the process biased to get specific answers to the question posed by the researchers? And of course, the funder gets to pick the question being asked in the first place. Like "Is whole wheat better than refined white wheat?" as opposed to the question "How does wheat compare to other real fresh whole foods?". No, *all* scientists, medical people and researchers are not "on the take". But there are enough of them that are "on the take" doing all that research and trumpeting the results by press conference as opposed to quietly publishing the results like most real non-on-the-take scientists tend to do. When up 80% of researchers are funded by industry, and the requirements to report these ties are lax, how do you determine what is real science and what is marketting? Real scientists can't even tell the difference without a great deal of applied cynicism and research on who's working to whom. When the Atkins diet was the rage a couple of years ago, the grain industry funded dozens of "studies" that trumpetted how whole grains were so much better than refined grains. They produced enough "studies" and got enouh press and paid for enough advertizing thruout the media, that it is now common "knowledge" amongst the masses that "whole grains are good". That is how industry bias skews "science" and common opinion. Is this paranoia on my part? Nope, it is the reality of having a massive research industry where 70 to 80% of the science being done is paid for by the food and/or pharmaceutical industry. Now here is my question: Are all "scientific" researchers completely free of bias? TC |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|