The doctor was very brave to take on the makers of Avandia and expose people to the risk. But at what point does the public start to WAKE UP and realize that pharma does not have their best interests at heart. How long are they going to keep supporting these lying sacks of you know what? I mean as dirty and underhanded as they are, the public needs to start exercising its critical thinking skills once in awhile. What is that saying? Burn me once and it is your fault, burn me twice and it is my fault. What is the reason for being burned more times than we can count?
Good point. Yes the original study only presented those surveyed with two options. The details of the study are here http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/161/8/792 and the accompanying media release is here http://med.stanford.edu/news_releases/2007/august/fast-food.html
I am not a fan of McDonalds. I did have an anal professor for research methodology. Actually, besides having plain wrappers and the McDonald's brand, they should have had a wrapper with some kind of neutral picture on it, such as a generic flower or non brand graphic just to make sure kids didn't pick something with a design (ANY design) over the plain wrapper. I didn't read the study itself, only the account here. From what I understand, they only had plain and brand wrappers. If it truly is the branding, and they added a non brand design, it would just strengthen their case. Strong methodology makes for strong arguments.
The doctor was very brave to take on the makers of Avandia and expose people to the risk. But at what point does the public start to WAKE UP and realize that pharma does not have their best interests at heart. How long are they going to keep supporting these lying sacks of you know what? I mean as dirty and underhanded as they are, the public needs to start exercising its critical thinking skills once in awhile. What is that saying? Burn me once and it is your fault, burn me twice and it is my fault. What is the reason for being burned more times than we can count?
"upholding its mission to educate the public by publishing a steady stream of hard-hitting investigative reports."
Hahahahaha!!!! Can one get a hernia from laughing too hard!!!! In what universe does this happen? Alternative media sure! But MSM??????
Good point. Yes the original study only presented those surveyed with two options. The details of the study are here http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/161/8/792 and the accompanying media release is here http://med.stanford.edu/news_releases/2007/august/fast-food.html
I am not a fan of McDonalds. I did have an anal professor for research methodology. Actually, besides having plain wrappers and the McDonald's brand, they should have had a wrapper with some kind of neutral picture on it, such as a generic flower or non brand graphic just to make sure kids didn't pick something with a design (ANY design) over the plain wrapper. I didn't read the study itself, only the account here. From what I understand, they only had plain and brand wrappers. If it truly is the branding, and they added a non brand design, it would just strengthen their case. Strong methodology makes for strong arguments.
Say what you want, I'd STILL rather have global warming than global COOLING!!!!
Pages