> 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? >
With respect to certain products such as pomegranate juice, health claims are notable. I working on a new article, "health-related claims" which will explore this topic generally. Fred Bauder _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
