We hear much in the popular press and in various discussion
contexts, like this one, that some think carbohydrate intake
leads to metabolic syndrome and that to other kinds of
metabolic disorders. It is expressed in some form as "don't
eat refined carbohydrates and avoid metabolic problems doing
so causes". This is often presented in the context of glycemic
index/load food consuption and avoiding eating high such foods
because it leads to the disorders. Many notions are strung
together in support of such conclusions, it is a testable
notion that eating refined high gi/gl carbohydrates leads to
insulin resistance, a part of the metabolic syndrome; and so
it has been. The june 2005 "diabetes care" journal has this:

"Dietary Glycemic Index, Glycemic Load, Fiber, Simple Sugars,
and Insulin Resistance: The Inter99 study"

"CONCLUSIONS: Habitual intake of diets with a high glycemic
index and high glycemic load or diets with a high content of
total carbohydrate including simple sugars was not associated
with the probability of having insulin resistance.
Furthermore, intake of dietary fiber was inversely associated
with the probability of having insulin resistance."

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/26/8/2335

Prevalences of Diabetes and Impaired Glucose Regulation in a
Danish Population The Inter99 study Charlotte Gl=FCmer, MD1,2,
Torben J=F8rgensen, MD, DMSC2 and Knut Borch-Johnsen, MD,
DMSC1 1 Steno Diabetes Centre, Gentofte, Denmark 2 Research
Centre for Prevention and Health, Copenhagen County, Glostrup
University Hospital, Glostrup, Denmark

About the Authors:

"C.G. and K.B.J. *hold stock in* and have received research
funding from Novo Nordisk."

The asterisks are mine.

Check this out, Click on the Diabetes Care, then Healthcare
Professional, then solemnly swear, and check out all the Novo
Nordisk diabetes care products:

http://www.novonordisk.com/diabetes/default.asp

Check out their 2004 Annual Report at:

http://www.novonordisk.com/annual-report/

It looks as if Nova Nordisk's main area of business is
diabetes products.

What would happen to their sales if people found out that
they could control the progression of diabetes and
drsatically reduce their insulin and insulin testing needs
with diet alone?

Nice try there, calypso. Pretty damned machiavellian and very
disturbing that these two industry whores would put this kind
of junk science out there, and that the journal would publish
this marketting crap.

TC

calypso47~voyager.net wrote:
  > We hear much in the popular press and in various discussion
  > contexts, like this one, that some think carbohydrate intake
  > leads to metabolic syndrome and that to other kinds of
  > metabolic disorders. It is expressed in some form as "don't
  > eat refined carbohydrates and avoid metabolic problems doing
  > so causes". This is often presented in the context of
  > glycemic index/load food consuption and avoiding eating high
  > such foods because it leads to the disorders. Many notions
  > are strung together in support of such conclusions, it is a
  > testable notion that eating refined high gi/gl carbohydrates
  > leads to insulin resistance, a part of the metabolic
  > syndrome; and so it has been. The june 2005 "diabetes care"
  > journal has this:
  >
  > "Dietary Glycemic Index, Glycemic Load, Fiber, Simple
  > Sugars, and Insulin Resistance: The Inter99 study"
  >
  > "CONCLUSIONS: Habitual intake of diets with a high glycemic
  > index and high glycemic load or diets with a high content of
  > total carbohydrate including simple sugars was not
  > associated with the probability of having insulin
  > resistance. Furthermore, intake of dietary fiber was
  > inversely associated with the probability of having insulin
  > resistance."

On 30 May 2005 18:59:49 GMT, calypso47~voyager.net wrote:

  >We hear much in the popular press and in various discussion
  >contexts, like this one, that some think carbohydrate intake
  >leads to metabolic syndrome and that to other kinds of
  >metabolic disorders. It is expressed in some form as "don't
  >eat refined carbohydrates and avoid metabolic problems doing
  >so causes". This is often presented in the context of
  >glycemic index/load food consuption and avoiding eating high
  >such foods because it leads to the disorders. Many notions
  >are strung together in support of such conclusions, it is a
  >testable notion that eating refined high gi/gl carbohydrates
  >leads to insulin resistance, a part of the metabolic
  >syndrome; and so it has been. The june 2005 "diabetes care"
  >journal has this:
  >
People have Type 2 diabetes because they eat too many
calories, too much fat, and are sedentary which begs the
question why these people feel the need to eat so much when
they don't do a damn thing to burn it off. I run 30 miles a
week on between 1800-2400 calories a day. Anything more and I
would explode.

  >"Dietary Glycemic Index, Glycemic Load, Fiber, Simple Sugars,
  >and Insulin Resistance: The Inter99 study"
  >
  >"CONCLUSIONS: Habitual intake of diets with a high glycemic
  >index and high glycemic load or diets with a high content of
  >total carbohydrate including simple sugars was not associated
  >with the probability of having insulin resistance.
  >Furthermore, intake of dietary fiber was inversely associated
  >with the probability of having insulin resistance."

Big suprise. Like all that fast food consumed is just refined
flour. No fat or a gazillion calories in fast food just carbs.

On 30 May 2005 13:58:04 -0700, "TC"
<tunderbar~hotmail.com> wrote:

  >http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/26/8/2335
  >
  >Prevalences of Diabetes and Impaired Glucose Regulation in a
  >Danish Population The Inter99 study Charlotte Glümer, MD1,2,
  >Torben Jørgensen, MD, DMSC2 and Knut Borch-Johnsen, MD, DMSC1
  >1 Steno Diabetes Centre, Gentofte, Denmark 2 Research Centre
  >for Prevention and Health, Copenhagen County, Glostrup
  >University Hospital, Glostrup, Denmark
  >
  >About the Authors:
  >
  >"C.G. and K.B.J. *hold stock in* and have received research
  >funding from Novo Nordisk."
  >
  >The asterisks are mine.

So they conclude that people with diabetes are more likely to
be fat, lazy /inactive, high blood pressure and cholesterol
from all that fat I mean carbs.
  >
  >Check this out, Click on the Diabetes Care, then Healthcare
  >Professional, then solemnly swear, and check out all the Novo
  >Nordisk diabetes care products:
  >
  >http://www.novonordisk.com/diabetes/default.asp
  >
  >Check out their 2004 Annual Report at:
  >
  >http://www.novonordisk.com/annual-report/
  >
  >It looks as if Nova Nordisk's main area of business is
  >diabetes products.
  >
  >What would happen to their sales if people found out that
  >they could control the progression of diabetes and
  >drsatically reduce their insulin and insulin testing needs
  >with diet alone?

Yea you can just tell everyone to eat less. I would really be
afraid to tell people that as they might actually do it. LOL!
  >
  >
  >
  >Nice try there, calypso. Pretty damned machiavellian and very
  >disturbing that these two industry whores would put this kind
  >of junk science out there, and that the journal would publish
  >this marketting crap.
  >
Yeah, good thing Atkins isn't a whore putting junk science out
there. No financial stake in the Atkins empire.

"Bob" <....> wrote in message
news61n91pet5u4bbem6ilp2484rri0038h2k~4ax.com...
  > On 30 May 2005 13:58:04 -0700, "TC"
  > <tunderbar~hotmail.com> wrote:
  >
     > >http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/26/8/2335
     > >
     > >Prevalences of Diabetes and Impaired Glucose Regulation in
     > >a Danish Population The Inter99 study Charlotte Glümer,
     > >MD1,2, Torben Jørgensen, MD, DMSC2 and Knut Borch-Johnsen,
     > >MD, DMSC1 1 Steno Diabetes Centre, Gentofte, Denmark 2
     > >Research Centre for Prevention and Health, Copenhagen
     > >County, Glostrup University Hospital, Glostrup, Denmark
     > >
     > >About the Authors:
     > >
     > >"C.G. and K.B.J. *hold stock in* and have received research
     > >funding from Novo Nordisk."
     > >
     > >The asterisks are mine.
  >
  > So they conclude that people with diabetes are more likely
  > to be fat, lazy /inactive, high blood pressure and
  > cholesterol from all that fat I mean carbs.
     > >
     > >Check this out, Click on the Diabetes Care, then Healthcare
     > >Professional, then solemnly swear, and check out all the
     > >Novo Nordisk diabetes care products:
     > >
     > >http://www.novonordisk.com/diabetes/default.asp
     > >
     > >Check out their 2004 Annual Report at:
     > >
     > >http://www.novonordisk.com/annual-report/
     > >
     > >It looks as if Nova Nordisk's main area of business is
     > >diabetes products.
     > >
     > >What would happen to their sales if people found out that
     > >they could control the progression of diabetes and
     > >drsatically reduce their insulin and insulin testing needs
     > >with diet alone?
  >
  > Yea you can just tell everyone to eat less. I would really
  > be afraid to tell people that as they might actually do
  > it. LOL!

The idiot there is TC that believes people don't know that
being fat is bad for your health. Just tell them to eat less
and they will be cured TC.

Too much unsaturated fat is clearly a problem, but let's
suppose you eat a "reasonable" amount of calories, and not
too much food that places oxidative stress on your body.
Then, you main concern would be getting enough protein (of
good quality).

It sounds like you might want to read "The Modern Nutrtional
Disease" by Ottoboni and Ottoboni. The repeat the silly
essential fatty acid claims, but the rest of the book is
very good.

On 30 May 2005 18:59:49 GMT, calypso47~voyager.net wrote in
<news:429b62a5$0$3456$4d5ecec7~reader.city-net.com> on
sci.med.nutrition :

  > We hear much in the popular press and in various discussion
  > contexts, like this one, that some think carbohydrate intake
  > leads to metabolic syndrome and that to other kinds of
  > metabolic disorders. It is expressed in some form as "don't
  > eat refined carbohydrates and avoid metabolic problems doing
  > so causes". This is often presented in the context of
  > glycemic index/load food consuption and avoiding eating high
  > such foods because it leads to the disorders. Many notions
  > are strung together in support of such conclusions, it is a
  > testable notion that eating refined high gi/gl carbohydrates
  > leads to insulin resistance, a part of the metabolic
  > syndrome; and so it has been. The june 2005 "diabetes care"
  > journal has this:
  >
  > "Dietary Glycemic Index, Glycemic Load, Fiber, Simple
  > Sugars, and Insulin Resistance: The Inter99 study"
  >
  > "CONCLUSIONS: Habitual intake of diets with a high glycemic
  > index and high glycemic load or diets with a high content of
  > total carbohydrate including simple sugars was not
  > associated with the probability of having insulin
  > resistance. Furthermore, intake of dietary fiber was
  > inversely associated with the probability of having insulin
  > resistance."

Perhaps we must look into it more closely and understand what
kinds of "high glycemic load" diet they actually ate.

The article says: "Intake of dietary fiber explained the
associations [of insulin resistance] with daily glycemic
load".

Thus I gather they got their carbohydrate from foods rich in
fiber, such as whole grains, perhaps, and fruit and vegetables
(mentioned in the abstract), as opposite to a diet rich in
refined grains, or added sugar, am I right?

The mentioned "high IG" foods, are fruits, by the way?

What GI and GL do they consider "high"? (GI > 55 ?)

Here is the abstract...

=======================
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/28/6/13-
97

Dietary Glycemic Index, Glycemic Load, Fiber, Simple Sugars,
and Insulin Resistance The Inter99 study Cathrine Lau, MSC1,2,
Kristine Færch, MSC1,2, Charlotte Glümer, MD, PHD1,3, Inge
Tetens, MSC, PHD2, Oluf Pedersen, MD, DMSC1,4, Bendix
Carstensen, MSC1, Torben Jørgensen, MD, DMSC3 and Knut
Borch-Johnsen, MD, DMSC1

1 Steno Diabetes Center, Gentofte, Denmark 2 Department of
Human Nutrition, LMC Centre for Advanced Food Studies, the
Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Frederiksberg,
Denmark 3 Research Centre for Prevention and Health,
Glostrup, Denmark 4 Faculty of Health, University of Aarhus,
Aarhus, Denmark

[...]

OBJECTIVE—To examine the relationship between daily glycemic
index, daily glycemic load, simple sugars, dietary fiber, and
the prevalence of a measure of insulin resistance in 30- to
60-year-old nondiabetic Danish men and women.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—The Inter99 study is a
nonpharmacological intervention study. We used baseline data
and examined cross-sectional associations between
carbohydrate-related dietary factors and an estimate of
insulin resistance in 5,675 subjects at 30–60 years. The
dietary intake was estimated from a self-administered food
frequency questionnaire, and insulin resistance was estimated
using the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance
(HOMA-IR). Multiple regressions were performed with HOMA-IR as
the dependent variable and carbohydrate-related factors as
explanatory variables. All models were adjusted for age, sex,
smoking, physical activity, total energy intake, BMI, and
waist circumference.

RESULTS—Intake of lactose was positively associated with
HOMA-IR (P < .0001), whereas daily glycemic load and intake
of glucose, fructose, dietary fiber, total carbohydrate,
fruit, and vegetables were inversely associated with HOMA-IR
(P < 0.05). Intake of dietary fiber explained the
associations with daily glycemic load and total carbohydrate
and attenuated the association with fruit and vegetables. No
significant associations were observed for daily glycemic
index or sucrose.

CONCLUSIONS—Habitual intake of diets with a high glycemic
index and high glycemic load or diets with a high content of
total carbohydrate including simple sugars was not associated
with the probability of having insulin resistance.
Furthermore, intake of dietary fiber was inversely associated
with the probability of having insulin resistance.

Abbreviations: 2-h PG, 2-h postchallenge plasma glucose •
FFQ, food frequency questionnaire • FPG, fasting plasma
glucose • HOMA-IR, homeostasis model assessment of insulin
resistance

=======================

[Unicode Message / Messaggio Unicode]

People.... the jackasses who are trying to convince us thru
this "science" are themselves owners of Novo Nordisk stock.
The researchers are stockholders of a company that makes
billions from "treating" diabetes with insulin and glucose
lowering drugs.

If it was known that you can control the progression of
diabetes T2 and limit the use of these drugs by restricting
carbs in the diet these "scientists" would themselves lose
money right out of their pockets. They stand to make money
by disputing the effects of restricting carbs on blood
glucose levels.

Do you really think that these "researchers" would say
anything other than what they concluded in this "study"? Do
you guys not understand basic scientific independence and
integrity?

This is not science it is marketing. It is the scientific
equivalent of insider trading. It is dishonest. It is junk.

TC

Bob wrote:
  > On 30 May 2005 13:58:04 -0700, "TC"
  > <tunderbar~hotmail.com> wrote:
  >
     > >http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/26/8/2335
     > >
     > >Prevalences of Diabetes and Impaired Glucose Regulation in
     > >a Danish Population The Inter99 study Charlotte Gl=FCmer,
     > >MD1,2, Torben J=F8rgensen, MD, DMSC2 and Knut
     > >Borch-Johnsen, MD, DMSC1 1 Steno Diabetes Centre, Gentofte,
     > >Denmark 2 Research Centre for Prevention and Health,
     > >Copenhagen County, Glostrup University Hospital, Glostrup,
     > >Denmark
     > >
     > >About the Authors:
     > >
     > >"C.G. and K.B.J. *hold stock in* and have received research
     > >funding from Novo Nordisk."
     > >
     > >The asterisks are mine.
  >
  > So they conclude that people with diabetes are more likely
  > to be fat, lazy /inactive, high blood pressure and
  > cholesterol from all that fat I mean carbs.
     > >
     > >Check this out, Click on the Diabetes Care, then Healthcare
     > >Professional, then solemnly swear, and check out all the
     > >Novo Nordisk diabetes care products:
     > >
     > >http://www.novonordisk.com/diabetes/default.asp
     > >
     > >Check out their 2004 Annual Report at:
     > >
     > >http://www.novonordisk.com/annual-report/
     > >
     > >It looks as if Nova Nordisk's main area of business is
     > >diabetes products.
     > >
     > >What would happen to their sales if people found out that
     > >they could control the progression of diabetes and
     > >drsatically reduce their insulin and insulin testing needs
     > >with diet alone?
  >
  > Yea you can just tell everyone to eat less. I would really
  > be afraid to tell people that as they might actually do
  > it. LOL!
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > >Nice try there, calypso. Pretty damned machiavellian and
     > >very disturbing that these two industry whores would put
     > >this kind of junk science out there, and that the journal
     > >would publish this marketting crap.
     > >
  > Yeah, good thing Atkins isn't a whore putting junk science
  > out there. No financial stake in the Atkins empire.

You guys are still missing the point.

Two diabetes-products-company stock-holders do a "study". The
study finds that restricting carbs have no impact on diabetes.
Ergo you must forget about restricting carbs and keep on using
their products. Geez. That's subtle.

The journal actually published it as supposed real science.
This is NOT science. It is self-serving and corrupt marketing.

Imagine a restaurant owner trying to pass himself off as a
public food critic. It ain't gonna work. No-ones gonna buy it.
He can not possibly be considered fair and un-biased.

Imagine a referee whose on the payroll of one of the teams
that are playing. The other team ain't gonna be happy. The
ref will not be trusted to call a fair game. And he
probably will not.

Imagine one taxi company in charge of licensing all taxi-cabs
in a given jurisdiction. Whose gonna get the licenses?

There are things in this world that just scream out at you.
And this is one of them. These researchers cannot possibly be
taken seriously as people of science. They are doing marketing
to improve and protect the value of the stock that they own.
They are investors in Novo Nordisk. They put their money in
the company and then doing all they can to maximize the value
of their investment. It could not be any clearer. If it was a
snake it would bite you in the ass.

TC

Robert wrote:
  > "TC" <tunderbar~hotmail.com> wrote in message
  > news:1117506095.387652.7610~g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
  >
  > People.... the jackasses who are trying to convince us thru
  > this "science" are themselves owners of Novo Nordisk stock.
  > The researchers are stockholders of a company that makes
  > billions from "treating" diabetes with insulin and glucose
  > lowering drugs.
  >
  > If it was known that you can control the progression of
  > diabetes T2 and limit the use of these drugs by restricting
  > carbs in the diet these "scientists" would themselves lose
  > money right out of their pockets. They stand to make money
  > by disputing the effects of restricting carbs on blood
  > glucose levels.
  >
  > What a laugh. Do you really think that people who are
  > diabetic don't know that? They are completely ignorant of
  > their disease. These people are overweight because they
  > thought that eating everything on the table and then some
  > was in case of an upcoming food shortage. I hope nobody
  > tells them they truth so that companies can continue to make
  > money on insulin. Let's just keep that our secret.
  >
  > Do you really think that these "researchers" would say
  > anything other than what they concluded in this "study"? Do
  > you guys not understand basic scientific independence and
  > integrity?
  >
  > I want a completely independent bread maker baker to do
  > scientific unbiased studies on diabetes. Better yet maybe we
  > can have a computer tech like yourself do it. They are
  > completely independent of any medical bias.
  >
  > This is not science it is marketing. It is the scientific
  > equivalent of insider trading. It is dishonest. It is junk.
  >
  > TC
  >
  > You tell people who are overweight to stop eating because it
  > is unhealthy for them. They really don't know that. They
  > need a study to show them that. If you get a study done then
  > they will really listen. NOT.

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? Why are you guys bending over
backward to justify and defend this nonsense? This isn't some
grey-area imaginary grasping-at-straws all-in-my-mind tenuous
link here. They own stock in a company that sells drugs to
control blood glucose levels and they are doing a study on a
blood glucose control condition.

Geez.

TC

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

calyps...~voyager.net wrote:
  > "Nice try there, calypso. Pretty damned machiavellian and
  > very disturbing that these two industry whores would put
  > this kind of junk science out there, and that the journal
  > would publish this marketting crap."
  >
  > What specific part of the study is invalid for being a fraud
  > or deliberate dishonesty? That is a methodology question and
  > must be answered likewise, otherwise irrelevant. Can you
  > provide research to the contrary and have you veted it for
  > disclosure as it is the polcy of that journal? How does a
  > conspiracy theory about a drug company relate to an study on
  > the level of insulin resistance with food consuption? That
  > is a philosophy of science question and must be answered
  > likewise.

The entire study is invalid because of the simple fact that
the two researchers have direct financial interest in a
company whose sales will be directly affected by the results
of the study.

This is not a conspiracy, nor have I ever implied or suggested
a conspiracy. I've never used the term. That is entirely your
construct.

This is just an example of *common marketing practices* in the
food and pharmaceutical industries. It is not science, it is
marketing, and it should be treated as such.

You may wish to have a closer look at the studies methodology,
and the data collected, etc, to see if it meets any scientific
standards and use that to decide on its validity. Knock
yourself out. But, it is obvious that this study is not
science, it is most definitely marketing.

TC

Stacey Bender wrote:
  > TC wrote:
     > > Apples and oranges. Mutual funds are not the same as
     > > owning shares in a specific company. Earning a salary and
     > > getting a profit sharing bonus is not the same as owning
     > > stock in a specific company and isn't relevant to this
     > > specific incident.
  >
  > Profit is profit. You may argue the degree, but the
  > self-interests of everyone involved are aligned with the
  > company making money.
  >
  >
     > > What is wrong is that the researchers have a direct vested
     > > interest in finding exactly what they found. And of
     > > course, that is exactly what they found.
  >
  > That's not convinving in the same way as saying because
  > someone is a woman you can't trust their work.
  >
  >
     > > The boy cried wolf when there was no wolf. I cry conflict
     > > of interest and, lo and behold, there is a massive,
     > > obvious indisputable, blatant conflict of interest.
  >
  > You jump to the conclusion that the study itself is wrong
  > and you have no proof of that. You take the easy way out and
  > cry conflict of interest with no facts.
  >
     > >I don't understand why you would even try to say otherwise.
  >
  > It's a conflict of interest, but that's not enough not to
  > believe a study.
  >
  >
     > > Have you heard of the Emperor's new clothes?
  >
  > I am wearing them now.
  >
     > >>Are you or have you ever been a communist? Great path you
     > >>are following.
     > >
     > >
     > > I am not nor have I ever been a communist. I have no fear
     > > in answering the question because I have nothing to hide.
  >
  > Your principles are hidden. You should object to the
  > question based on principle for what it implies.
  >
     > >
     > > Now, how about you, any financial interests to disclose?
     > > Where do you work and what do you do?
  >
  > I own lots of mutual funds, there is no doubt I have money
  > in something related somehow. I guess I should end all
  > intellectual persuits immediately.
  >
  >
     > > I'll bet dollars to donuts that you are hiding some
     > > financial interest(s).
  >
  > Your irrationality on the subject indicates you are hiding
  > something as well.

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.

TC

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

Stacey Bender wrote:
  > TC wrote:
     > > Are you going to answer the questions or not.
  >
  > No, and neither should have you.

I have nothing to hide.

  >
     > >You can easily clear the air.
  >
  > You don't clear the air by red-bating.

Red-baiting implies holding ones communist past or communist
leanings against them. I have not done that. You have.

  >
  >
     > > 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.
  >
  > It's not wrong. It will certainly be extra skeptical. It is
  > simply has insufficient strength to declare all research
  > derived from corporate research as inherently false.

It is more than sufficient in cases where:

1) the researcher tries to hide ties to industry (this does
not apply in this case)
2) the researcher actually owns stock in the company that
stands to benefit from the findings in the study

There are no two ways about it. You cannot have your cake and
eat it too.

TC