"The study was supported by a grant from NIH. Was this entirely tax money or was it money "donated" to the NIH for this study? And was the study entirely funded by the NIH or was it partially funded by the NIH, and if so, where did the rest of the funding come from?"
You asked, I provided, your rhetorical questions are irrelevant to your original request. If you are interested to know about the contents of the grant then do your own homework. If you are interested in knowing sources of nih funds then do your own homework. This is all public information, do your own home work. Just because you can ask questions doesn't change the results, you asked and you were answered fully and your lifestyle food cult conspiracy clouded views have been addressed, again reminding you it is irrelevant to the science of soy and health. There are thousands of soy studies, this one is not rare, that is the education you have now been provided, but knowing that facts will not cloud your thinking, your education will no doubt continue.
You are challenging other peoples logic with that kind of nonsense? that is laughable.
TC
Quoted message said:
"The study was supported by a grant from NIH. Was this entirely tax money or was it money "donated" to the NIH for this study? And was the study entirely funded by the NIH or was it partially funded by the NIH, and if so, where did the rest of the funding come from?"
You asked, I provided, your rhetorical questions are irrelevant to your original request. If you are interested to know about the contents of the grant then do your own homework. If you are interested in knowing sources of nih funds then do your own homework. This is all public information, do your own home work. Just because you can ask questions doesn't change the results, you asked and you were answered fully and your lifestyle food cult conspiracy clouded views have been addressed, again reminding you it is irrelevant to the science of soy and health. There are thousands of soy studies, this one is not rare, that is the education you have now been provided, but knowing that facts will not cloud your thinking, your education will no doubt continue.
"You are challenging other peoples logic with that kind of nonsense? that is laughable."
When we see some logic we can respond likewise. Your goal post moving of introducing new questions is a dead end. You asked for an example of a non food industry funded study on soy showing health benefits and one was provided. Now being in a corner we see this kind of squirming and whining as a response. Asked and answered, full proof given, next question please, as we continue your education; all the time going slowly so as not to create too much confusion when presented with facts that undermine the lifestyle food cult propaganda.
"You still haven't shown me a study that is clearly devoid of industry influence."
O please, this continued whining and squirming is getting embarrassing now. I provided the complete confirmation that is the standard of ama publishing. The present and past head of the ama were part of what is now a spreading practice of making sure any influence or connection that could suggest interference in research is declared, they are very hard headed about this now. I can't however confirm that the author's grandmother doesn't eat soy based foods and has twisted her grandson's arm to show a biased research result, you sure got me on that one. If you want to demonstrate a problem it is now for you to do so, as said before, do your own homework and stop whining. I 'm sure you have already done a google on the author's name and came up empty handed to show conflict and this is what we get from that frustration.
"You are challenging other peoples logic with that kind of nonsense? that is laughable."
When we see some logic we can respond likewise. Your goal post moving of introducing new questions is a dead end. You asked for an example of a non food industry funded study on soy showing health benefits and one was provided. Now being in a corner we see this kind of squirming and whining as a response. Asked and answered, full proof given, next question please, as we continue your education; all the time going slowly so as not to create too much confusion when presented with facts that undermine the lifestyle food cult propaganda.
You still haven't shown me a study that is clearly devoid of industry influence.
"You still haven't shown me a study that is clearly devoid of industry influence."
O please, this continued whining and squirming is getting embarrassing now. I provided the complete confirmation that is the standard of ama publishing. The present and past head of the ama were part of what is now a spreading practice of making sure any influence or connection that could suggest interference in research is declared, they are very hard headed about this now. I can't however confirm that the author's grandmother doesn't eat soy based foods and has twisted her grandson's arm to show a biased research result, you sure got me on that one. If you want to demonstrate a problem it is now for you to do so, as said before, do your own homework and stop whining. I 'm sure you have already done a google on the author's name and came up empty handed to show conflict and this is what we get from that frustration.
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"You are challenging other peoples logic with that kind of nonsense? that is laughable."
When we see some logic we can respond likewise. Your goal post moving of introducing new questions is a dead end. You asked for an example of a non food industry funded study on soy showing health benefits and one was provided. Now being in a corner we see this kind of squirming and whining as a response. Asked and answered, full proof given, next question please, as we continue your education; all the time going slowly so as not to create too much confusion when presented with facts that undermine the lifestyle food cult propaganda.
This is classic TC. Every study you show that counters his position he then claims that the study was funded by the devil incarnate. He is not just a cynic but a ludicrous cynic. He thinks achieves legitimacy with his "bad guy behind every study." With such fanatic assumptions, make you wonder how he sleeps at night. Hmm, maybe he doesn't.
Notice how quiet he/she got when I put that question to him/her? I'd like an answer, or would that be too incriminating, hence the silence? Obviously I won.
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"You are challenging other peoples logic with that kind of nonsense? that is laughable."
When we see some logic we can respond likewise. Your goal post moving of introducing new questions is a dead end. You asked for an example of a non food industry funded study on soy showing health benefits and one was provided. Now being in a corner we see this kind of squirming and whining as a response. Asked and answered, full proof given, next question please, as we continue your education; all the time going slowly so as not to create too much confusion when presented with facts that undermine the lifestyle food cult propaganda.
This is classic TC. Every study you show that counters his position he then claims that the study was funded by the devil incarnate. He is not just a cynic but a ludicrous cynic. He thinks achieves legitimacy with his "bad guy behind every study." With such fanatic assumptions, make you wonder how he sleeps at night. Hmm, maybe he doesn't.
Put him in your kill file.
-DF
More than 70% of the science coming out of the US is industry funded. Industry does not put money into anything without expecting a quantifiable return on investment (ROI in financial-speak). There is nothing cynical about understanding the direct ramifications of industry funding on the "science" they fund. It is common sense. Anyone who suggests that industry funds studies with millions of their hard-earned dollars without influencing and affecting the outcome of the studies must be either completely naive and stupid or they stand to benefit directly by taking such a stand. The simple fact is that money talks, especially in the US.
Notice how quiet he/she got when I put that question to him/her? I'd like an answer, or would that be too incriminating, hence the silence? Obviously I won.
No and no amount of red herring questions will change it. You asked, you were answered, you came out swinging and fell flat on your face, fini. My grandmother doesn't work for any food industry group.
"I will concede defeat.... just as soon as you tell us who you work for and what interests you have in the food industry."
Concession neither required or requested, simple observation suffices. I have intrest in the food industry as a daily consumer. My grandmother is implicated however as she sold some canned things from her garden.
Notice how quiet he/she got when I put that question to him/her? I'd like an answer, or would that be too incriminating, hence the silence? Obviously I won.
No and no amount of red herring questions will change it. You asked, you were answered, you came out swinging and fell flat on your face, fini. My grandmother doesn't work for any food industry group.
I will concede defeat.... just as soon as you tell us who you work for and what interests you have in the food industry.
"You say that you have intrest in the food industry as a daily consumer but you do not explicitly say that you have no other interest. Pretty sneaky language."
That's the way we daily consumers are, explicitly sneaky.
"I will concede defeat.... just as soon as you tell us who you work for and what interests you have in the food industry."
Concession neither required or requested, simple observation suffices. I have intrest in the food industry as a daily consumer. My grandmother is implicated however as she sold some canned things from her garden.
You say that you have intrest in the food industry as a daily consumer but you do not explicitly say that you have no other interest. Pretty sneaky language.
"I know, it kinda adds another underserved level of nastiness to the already maligned reputation of prostitutes."
Prostitutes, who said anything about them, it is the slander of [censored] we daily consumers find most objectionable. Prostitutes eat soy products and are by definition not to be relied upon for anything.
Stop, I can't take the pressure anymore, I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the communist party. But, please please please don't ask me if I'm still beating my wife.
Stop, I can't take the pressure anymore, I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the communist party. But, please please please don't ask me if I'm still beating my wife.
