|
One final thought about the "Health Check" conflict of interest argument...
All sources - regardless of their goals and orientations - require some sort of funding. That means that you can't simply say, "Dr Eades' diet book is a better source of information because the studies he used are not biased" while simultaneously arguing that all other research studies that offer contradictory evidence are "bogus".
While research like the China Study may indeed be "biased," it is not as if the counter-arguments are somehow free from bias and conflicts of interest themselves. Does the $700,000 book offer given to Gary Taubes to write a controversial book, for example, not constitute an equal (or perhaps even more alarming) source of "bias"?
I'm simply saying that in order to truly conduct a "critical analysis" of research and scientific opinions you have to put both sides of the argument under the same microscope. Dismissing one side of the argument due to conflicts of interest without similarly scrutinizing the other side's arguments will not reveal any truths at all.
Additionally, I try to keep in mind the motives of a researcher, author, or institution.
For example, what are the motives of Health Canada? To increase the health of the population, reduce costs, and perhaps to help the current government retain office.
What are the motives of Heart and Stroke foundation? To promote initiatives that assist people make healthy decisions, to fund research that aids in the prevention of heart/brain related diseases, and perhaps to secure future funding by promoting specific products manufactured by major donors.
What are the motives of Gary Taubes? To write a book that actively challenges the current paradigms of modern science, to spark debate and interest in a neglected subject, and perhaps to sell many copies of his book by being very controversial.
What are the motivations of Dr. Eades? To write a book that helps people lose weight quickly, perhaps for a special event like a wedding, to help people feel better about themselves while eating what they want, and perhaps to make a boatload of money by writing a book that around the notion that sounds incredibly attractive to the average person (that people can eat their favourite foods, like bacon, and still lose weight).
I can't specifically question the ethics of Dr. Eades in particular but from a marketing perspective it makes no sense to write a book called "change your lifestyle, avoid your favourite foods and you'll slowly but permanently lose weight". People are going to be far more interested in a book with the title, "lose 40lbs in six weeks by eating lots of delicious high-fat foods that other diets don't allow you to go near".
Anyway, I'm not saying that any of the above is beyond the reach of outside influences or conflicts of interest. I'm just illustrating how a person can accuse any and all parties of being "self-interested" or "biased" towards the position that provides financial gains.
|