Re: Another low carb article bites the dust
From: tcomeau (tunderbar_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/29/04
- Next message: Zee: "Re: Put your babies on statins"
- Previous message: David Dalton: "Iron deficiency/low red blood cell count"
- In reply to: markd_at_toad-net.com: "Re: Another low carb article bites the dust"
- Next in thread: Robert: "Re: Another low carb article bites the dust"
- Reply: Robert: "Re: Another low carb article bites the dust"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 29 Jul 2004 12:08:32 -0700
markd@toad-net.com wrote in message news:<410903d0$0$252$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>...
> "1) article gets posted
> 2) article gets debunked because of commercial connections or just
> because it is anti-low-carb.
>
> You are omitting step one and ignoring the "anti-low-carb" part."
>
> The responses are too often not debuncking at all with regard to science
> but with to what degree it agrees with some nutrition theology belief
> system. Thus they miss the science step and are then mostly not worth the
> effort to read. A post for or against some theme can have merit if the
> science is there. When the bulk of a response is an attack upon a person
> then by definition it is worthless and gets tossed. Someone on some
> mailing list or such I read has a sig line that goes somelike:
>
> "I don't debate with an unarmed person"
>
> which tells the tale nicely. If conspiracy and attack upon persons is all
> some can do then not debating them is a mercy toward them and a saving of
> time for all.
Commercial connections do not necessarily debunk science. But it does
raise red flags and we should always be acutely aware of it and take
it into account.
If the commercial connections are stated up front and the science is
done properly then the science may have merit.
If the commercial interests are not stated up front or, worse yet, an
attempt is made to hide the interests, then that by itself is a huge
red flag. At that point we have to be extremely critical when
considering whether the science has merit. My experience is that the
science done under these circumstances are highly suspect. But that is
just my opinion now, isn't it?
TC
- Next message: Zee: "Re: Put your babies on statins"
- Previous message: David Dalton: "Iron deficiency/low red blood cell count"
- In reply to: markd_at_toad-net.com: "Re: Another low carb article bites the dust"
- Next in thread: Robert: "Re: Another low carb article bites the dust"
- Reply: Robert: "Re: Another low carb article bites the dust"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
