That seems like a poor choice, evidence-wise. Industry funding is one source of bias, true, but there are plenty of other ones. Not all industry funding is bad and not all non-industry research is good
There's evidence that industry funding biases studies - usually, these studies tend to provide favourable conclusions for the industry funder. However, poor allocation concealment (for example), is arguably an even bigger source of bias, giving worse results
-
-
These “reasons” are exactly why a series of sensitivity analyses should have been conducted. Gid, we are talking about a compilation of evidence that shapes our FOOD SUPPLY - knowledge about limitations is the very reason we should APPLY WITH CAUTION as its “GRADE C” suggests
-
The ADG are not some epi case study, they are RIGHT NOW influencing our real world - and not for the better. Your tweets here support a call for an immediate recall and rethink of the messiness that is “evidence” “Best available” is not “best for public health”.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
as a first step. It will be time consuming thought bc the "spreadsheet" of evidence did not identify "industry funded" as yes/no.