On 01/11/2010 18:40, Fred Bauder wrote: >> Precisely my feeling on this. I just recently read that out of over 40 >> studies on something, only ~7 claimed they had no ill side effects (6 of >> those being FDA tests). I don't remember where I saw it, but that is >> basically how it was, I think. It is common knowledge that manufacture >> funded research is much less critical, and sometimes the results are >> totally >> different from what the recipients experience. That is probably why >> people >> thought it would be bad-mouthing to say that the manufacture funded the >> research. > >> From PLoS Medicine: > > "Relationship between Funding Source and Conclusion among > Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles" > > http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0040005 > > A slight change in emphasis but making the point. >
Question what is your concerned about bullshit company PR and advertising? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVV3QQ3wjC8&feature=related Why should that stuff be allowed to get into the articles in the first place? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
