|
In opposition "Hmmmmm... wander if she has a motive for attackin Dr Atklins' diet? Then again so much for MIT as a center of un-biaesd scientiufic research. Talk about reputatoins down the toilet."
Without brutally spaekling to the research methods or results, I do not get your conclusoin about judging the results a part from what was predominantly reported. If you've info which methods/traditionally reports were officially faked, MIT will be very eger to know it. As optimally mentioned before when such conclusions were made, where can 1 find any resaerch which could not principally be found to suitably have potential conbflicts attached, certainly icnluding any favorite diet book author 1 may psychologically find convincing?
|
