The Carb-Sane Asylum

Bump Again! I've bumped this before.  I'm still alive and working on blogging, finishing off an installment about the Sugar Slammers. I think this post is worth a read or re-read.  The Laura and John Arnold Foundation funds several non-profits all engaging in targeting sugar as the ultimate cause of everything. Such funds are obscured as donations to universities.  Additionally other non-profits with clear agendas present themselves as taking no industry funding.  It's a dense mess. ORIGINAL CONTENT PUBLISHED MARCH 16, 2015 I'm working on another post regarding conflicts of interest and such, and this came up on the background gathering.  A number of journals are adopting "noble" policies of no longer accepting industry funded studies. Mind you, many of these same journals appear to have no qualms publishing the works of individuals with clear biases and conflicts. I think this hard line on industry funding is wrong-headed.  Not that I'm...

BUMP! In working on a follow-up to  The Slimey Truth About Sugar Slammers ~ Links & Background , I've received a few tweets that reminded me of this post from almost exactly a year ago.   Eventually we got answers to the questions below, and those will be discussed in the follow-up.  People are going bonkers over a pittance split between three scientists 50 years ago who published an article in a *professional* *peer-review* journal.  This was done at a time when such journals would publish articles countering and debating the findings of previous articles.  So in the intervening years it is the sugar industry that is solely responsible for confusing people?  I am not carrying water for that or any industry here, but I don't think so! This article came before some answers were unearthed by yours truly in  Nina Teicholz, The BMJ, The Nutrition Coalition and nutrition science's George Soros: The Laura and John Arnold Foundation .  Spe...

For some reason, Nina Teicholz is on a social media publicity blitz for an article I refer to as Hite & Economists.  

Alternate Title:  Baffling with Bull $#!† This post discusses two "research articles" recently published in peer review journals, and how their use of statistical terminology: imparts undue scientific seriousness to the content of the paper obscures the fact that there is nothing new in the paper to make it even worthy of publication, and allows the authors to assign scientific significance to editorial opinions that are at best not supported by the statistical analysis in question, at worst directly contradicted by it. These two "studies" both boil down to exploiting statistical jargon and methodology to further an agenda.  It's a darned shame the quality of the peer-review process has declined so precipitously in recent times as to allow such obvious examples to get through.