[TheNewGirl]

Actually it does Amura. As I said. I worked in one.

People would have research to disproave drug company claims... no one would fund it so they couldn't do it which means it's never published.

People would want to test things that go against conventional wisdom - No one would fund it. So it doesn't happen.

Even if it gets done (usually by grad students or the self funded) it doesn't get published. If it's not published in peer reviewed journals then it might as well never have happened because it's not recognised.

Anything, and I mean ANYTHING published in medical research should be regarded with a very very critical eye. Good seeming, bad seeming or other wise. One should look at other similar articals published by the journal/publisher. Do they suport the same opinion as the one you're reading? Do they present contrasting information? Who funded this research? Who is this researcher? What else have they done? Who do they work for? What kind of sample size did they use? Is this real research utilizing a sizable control group? Or is this a study of corralational relationships?

I note here MOST research involved in studying factors associated with cancer and obesity done by the various foundations you've listed are corralational. That means they are NOT true experiments and fundimentally flawed in their conclusion. They can NOT say X causes obesity, at best they can say 'some people who consume X tend to also be fat'.

Personally I don't say swollow Taubes thoughtlessly. Personally I think everyone should be as critical about the knowledge they consume as the food they eat, if not more so.

There are plenty, PLENTY of researchers that have already asserted that the way we treat food and regard nutrition is wrong. Many. But they don't have big bucks behind them.