This sounds like the cigarette companies all over again. Who thinks Coca-Cola isn't bad for them anymore? Maybe kids less than five and soda company executives.
You need to be a member of The Frugivore Diet to add comments!
This reply was deleted.
This sounds like the cigarette companies all over again. Who thinks Coca-Cola isn't bad for them anymore? Maybe kids less than five and soda company executives.
You need to be a member of The Frugivore Diet to add comments!
Replies
It would be surprising if they said 'limit your intake of soda as it's not really all that good for you'.
This is a corporate entity which has the main goal of making as much profit as possible.
They couldn't possibly admit that their main product is unhealthy. Not only would this result in lower sales it could open it up to lawsuits.
I noticed a game called WoW (World of Warcraft) that never admits their flaws. They may have changed by now, I played years ago. I don't like the entire corporate never admitting flaws, its short sighted because it ruins customer loyalty. Another example is that Microsoft now denies producing Windows Millennium.
If it was even possible my opinion about Coca-Cola is even lower than before, thanks Peter.
quite typical actually. these companies have been doing this sort of stuff for decades. back in the 90s, for instance, pepsi got into the high schools of toronto by funding various extracurricular activities.
this is the sort of crap we are subjected to (and mostly tolerate):
Food Industry “Funding Effect”
("he who pays the piper calls the tune")
in friendship,
prad
Really nice video, one of his best if not the best. Here's what I find laughable when I present this argument to people on other forums they laugh and pull the "I'm offended" card, until the moderators interfere. Typical response "I'm a scientist and I find your statement offensive." Sort of like the thief acting outraged when someone calls him/her a thief.
Here's the direct link to the PLOS source:
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pm...
which is a scholarly peer reviewed journal, excellent.
Here's a link to pubmed's reference to the annals of the new york academy of sciences which is also an awesome source.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17119200
WTG Greger!
I present this argument to people on other forums they laugh and pull the "I'm offended" card
so obviously there is nothing scientific about this response from these self-named 'scientists'. real scientists don't let their personal ego get in the way of discovery. besides, who really cares whether one is offended? :D
essentially what you have encountered is a 'disguised' ad hominem because though they are claiming to be the injured party, they are effectively attacking you for being "offensive". it's really name-calling in an attempt to deflect attention from where it should go.
in these situations, one can often gain a lot of mileage by
a) calling them for what they are doing, and then
b) getting back to the topic quoting sections of your papers to make the point again
of course, if the mods have been bought, then one can't really continue the discussion on that forum, but one can continue it on a different one (eg 30bad) and put links back to here. if they remove you, you can still continue the discussion with the folks here ... your 'scientists' will notice, even if they pretend not to. ;)
sometimes, the force of reality is so strong that it is not possible to cry "i am offended". for instance, when a most reputable colleague like barbara starfield exposes the medical profession to be the third leading cause of death through inarguable stats, even docs realize that they can't whine ad hominems at her. so what do they do?
you'll find out here:
How Doctors Responded to Being Named a Leading Killer
in friendship,
prad
Looks good yet another scholarly peer reviewed source from Greger. Thanks prad.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192908
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAMA_%28journal%29
I hope you don't mind me not trusting blindly. Wow, silence was the response from the doctors. Reminds me of Kathie Lee Gifford. She make the political mistake of confronting her problem and got lambasted for being brave. Meanwhile the clever criminals are quiet.
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/27/business/a-sweetheart-becomes-sus...
I wanted to become a doctor at one point, part of the reason I decided not to was the long work hours. I couldn't work 80 hours+ a week, no way. I'll listen to the other half later.
I hope you don't mind me not trusting blindly.
no one should trust blindly.
i found over the years that greger does his homework really well - i'm in a good position to see this because i've produced his bibliographies from the thousands of articles he sends me. almost never have i seen that his conclusion not properly following from the research.
greger is not a guy anyone would want to be on the wrong side of a debate! ;)
Reminds me of Kathie Lee Gifford. She make the political mistake of confronting her problem and got lambasted for being brave. Meanwhile the clever criminals are quiet.
ya. no good deed goes unpunished! says a lot about this corrupt society.
I wanted to become a doctor at one point
my father was a doctor and i was supposed to follow in his footsteps as a good son. however, since i had already determined that doctors are evil, i didn't, and took to criticizing them mercilessly instead. ;)
doctors don't have to be evil, but it's difficult to maintain their sort of a business unless you have sick people. i do think they are useful in emergency situations, but the rest of the time, they certainly seem to be a blight on civilization. :D
nice talking to you wesley! i'm off to work on other things now, so i'll probably not be on 30bad for a few days.
in friendship,
prad
"On its website, the group recommends combining greater exercise and food intake because, Dr. Hill said, “ ‘Eat less’ has never been a message that’s been effective. The message should be ‘Move more and eat smarter.’ ”" That does not sound bad. Unfortunately they do not tell people how to eat smart.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/opinion/coke-tries-to-sugarcoat-t...
I'm pretty sure the intent is fairly malicious. I just can't believe that a company would stoop so low.
"Coke and other beverage makers have long funneled money to industry-leaning scientists and formed innocent-sounding front groups to spread the message that sugary sodas have no deleterious effect on health and should not be taxed or regulated." New York Times
This is basically the definition of corporate evil.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/business/mountains-of-corn-and-a-...
With all the subsidies corn receives no wonder HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup) soda is so cheap and profitable. Also note these subsides subsidize corn fed livestock like cattle. Which in turn produce dairy and red meat.