Re: Another low carb article bites the dust

From: tcomeau (tunderbar_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/30/04 

Date: 29 Jul 2004 20:35:03 -0700

"Robert" <Robert@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<10gin498jjca8c2@corp.supernews.com>...
> "tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b550f406.0407291108.686d6f23@posting.google.com...
> > 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
> You don't have any commercial interests ties but I would question everything
> and all things coming from you. If you were to publish and a research paper
> and you were to state that you have no commercial interests then what would
> that mean in your case?
> I find it quite remarkable that papers stating no commercial interests by
> certain groups always come up with findings consistent with their position.
> Stating that one does not accept money from industry is in fact a
> declaration of a bias position up front and renders the findings
> questionable.

I disagree. And yet, I've been accused of holding that belief.

It is possible for a for-profit group to pay for solid, properly done,
research and live with the results of the research, all the while
ensuring that it is up front and declared. When one has the scientific
truth behind them, it is not necessary to skew or influence the
research being done.

What is highly questionable is hiding funding sources, or hiding
scientists past and often significant and on-going financial interests
directly related to the research being done (or guidelines being
recommended to gov't). It is also highly questionable to publish only
select papers that support your product while hiding papers that
don't. It is also highly questionable to do research and do
mathematical and statistical gymnastics with the numbers so that they
fit your "message". It is also highly questionable to have a company
lackey write a paper and then shop around and pay for a "scientist" to
put their name on it. It is also highly questionable to make far
reaching declarations that are at odds with the actual findings in the
paper.

Bias is where bias is, not just where you want it to be.

TC