Re: Does eating carbohydrates lead to metabolic disorders?



Stacey Bender wrote:
> TC wrote:
> >
> > Stacey Bender wrote:
> >
> >>TC wrote:
> >>
> >>>The journal actually published it as supposed real science. This is NOT
> >>>science. It is self-serving and corrupt marketing.
> >>
> >
> >>Then I would attack the science without spinning conspiracy theories
> >>about motive.
> >
> >
> > How can you call this "spinning conspiracy theories about motive".
> >
> > These people own stock in the company. They then proceed to do a
> > "study" that can only help the company.
> >
> > Am I the only one who sees this?
>
> No, most of see it as suggestive, not predictive. We all work at
> companies, that doesn't mean all the stuff we do is a lie.

I did not say that they *work* at the company. I said that they

*OWN PART OF THE COMPANY*.

And when you get two share-holders to do a study on a topic that is
directly linked to the present and future profitability of THEIR
company, the results are very, very, very predictable. In fact, the
"findings" of this study could not possibly be any different than what
they are.

>
> So your formula of company X produces product Y so you can't believe Z
> means be skeptical. If you want to go the next step and say Z is really
> wrong, you have to confront Z directly. You can't talk about X and Y.

No. Persons X1 and X2 own part of company Y therefore their study Z
that supports their companies products M equates to an attempt N to
ensure that their wallets O gets as fat as possible. That is a blatant
conflict of interest P that places doubt Q on the scientific
credibility R of both X1 and X2 which results in their study Z being
little more than blatant marketing R on behalf of the company Y.

Do you not understand the simple concept of conflict of interest?

What are your financial interests in this area? Do you own any shares
in any pharmaceutical or food industry companies? Who do you work for?
What do you do for a living?

TC

.

Quantcast