Not the issue. The issue, read the quotes, is that the neutrality of studies is thrown into question -- to the extent that a peer reviewed journal such as JAMA would not have published a study. It does not need to be disproven.Like you said, reading comprehension is a useful skill. Where was this study disproven?
I'm still waiting for you to produce a quote that says the quote we're arguing about said anything about luxury. Since you like to invoke logical fallacies like ad hominem, surely you understand that putting such words in someone's mouth is an attempt to discredit them.
Link it. I keep hearing you mumble, link it. Link the quote that backs you up, because I've responded with a clear quote that says people question David Allison's funding and the influence that funding has on research.The proof is in your link, where the vast consensus of the scientific community is against the money.
In case you're not getting the point, that there are enough instances of conflicts of interest in research to raise skepticism beyond the tinfoil hat conspiracy level, here's another well known example:
I used to do products liability work, I can keep this up all week. I've had to do the prove ups in court, after grilling by an appellate court, wiki logic links earn a nice yawn. I'm seeing a whole lot of comments, with no proof.A separate article finds that Merck frequently paid academic researchers to put their names on published articles about Vioxx that company employees or company-paid medical writers actually prepared.