Re: Does eating carbohydrates lead to metabolic disorders?



Stacey Bender wrote:
> TC wrote:
> > Your responses above are pretty darned irrational. And you keep ducking
> > the questions about your financial interests. I will read this behavior
> > as meaning you have no credible argument against mine, and that you do
> > indeed have financial interests that you find too embarrassing to state
> > here.
>
>
> Let's see:
> 1. Everyone has something to gain so postulating gain can't be used as
> an a priori form of objection.

Sure but thes these two researchers and the company in which they own
stock, Novo Nordisk, stand to gain cash. We are not talking about some
esoteric and unknown benefits they have to gain. We are talking about
cold hard cash.

> 2. I insist that evidence based on a study be used to discredit a study.

I insist that a study with such a blatant conflict of interest should
never have been published unless the company paid for advertising space
and clearly marked it as such.

> 3. You think red-bating is a legitimate form of argument. To you: Madam,
> when did you quit beating your husband? is perfectly legitimate
> question, one you can draw far reaching conclusions from.

Hey, you brought up the red-baiting. Your defense of the indefensible
and the irrationality of your arguments suggest that there is more to
your protestatios than you let on.

>
> I'm not getting my irrationality here.

Are you going to answer the questions or not. You can easily clear the
air. Simply state that you have no direct financial interests in
pharmaceutical or other industry that stands to gain from this study or
similar ones to it.

My arguments are about as simple and as rational as they get. Money and
greed greases the skids, and people of science are in it for money too.
They are not above these human desires. Please point out what is
irrational about this simple concept.

TC

.

Quantcast