※ 引述《ffreakoo (Krisch)》之铭言：
: http://goo.gl/Q8TVqV
: 刚刚读到的一篇报导，指出哈佛两篇营养学报告的两位营养学家（均已故）在做研究期间的经费由制糖公司（The Sugar Research Foundation)支持，进而发表对制糖业有利（favorable)的结果。
: 用手机不方便逐字翻译，如果大家有疑问可以继续讨论。
: 精致的糖真的对身体有害无益，大家赶紧戒掉吧！
: ***
: The trade group solicited Hegsted, a professor of nutrition at Harvard’s public health school, to write a literature review aimed at countering early research linking sucrose to coronary heart disease. The group paid the equivalent of $48,000 in 2016 dollars to Hegsted and colleague Dr. Robert McGandy, though the researchers never publicly disclosed that funding source, Kearns found.
: 两位哈佛营养学家被发现收了制糖业者相当于现今的$48,000美元
: Hegsted and Stare tore apart studies that implicated sugar and concluded that there was only one dietary modification — changing fat and cholesterol intake — that could prevent coronary heart disease. Their reviews were published in 1967 in the New England Journal of Medicine, which back then did not require researchers to disclose conflicts of interest.
: That was an era when researchers were battling over which dietary culprit — sugar or fat — was contributing to the deaths of many Americans, especially men, from coronary heart disease, the buildup of plaque in arteries of the heart. Kearns said the papers, which the trade group later cited in pamphlets provided to policymakers, aided the industry’s plan to increase sugar’s market share by convincing Americans to eat a low-fat diet.
: 那两位哈佛营养学家发表的文献里面，唯一的变量(variable)是脂肪跟胆固醇摄取。
: 但他们没有揭露利益（因为在那个年代不需要利益揭露）
: 那个时期刚好是研究者/学者争论糖跟脂肪哪个造成更多美国人的冠状动脉心脏病死亡案例。
: 因为这两篇biased的研究，影响到执政者，所以执政者开始推行低脂饮食。
: Nearly 50 years later, some nutritionists consider sugar a risk factor for coronary heart disease, though there’s no consensus. Having two major reviews published in an influential journal “helped shift the emphasis of the discussion away from sugar onto fat,” said Stanton Glantz, Kearns’s coauthor and her advisor at UCSF. “By doing that, it delayed the development of a scientific consensus on sugar-heart disease for decades.”
: 五十年后的今天，有些营养学家开始质疑糖对于冠状动脉心脏病的影响。但是因为这两位哈佛学者的有利的文献，使得焦点一直放在脂肪而非糖身上。
: ......写扣的空挡稍微翻译一下，就算不是医学/营养学背景的人也可以自己找文献来看，千万不要随着网络上（不具名）自称专家的偏颇言论起舞。
:

其实不算是靠背50年前的研究 而是再次重申研究中的任何“利益冲突conflict of interest”都应明白的揭露 所以那篇JAMA原文中连他们的经费来源都写的清清楚楚 这样的揭露程度在多数的研究论文中其实不多见

我的意思是一般人爱看的新闻当然是能把当事人描述的越黑越好，但是在这个议题上并没有一定是像新闻提的这样这是五十年前的"营养学"研究，你不能拿现在的医疗论文水平及法律标准去要求它。营养或医学的观念被推翻不是一次两次的事，每个研究总是会有相关团体投资资助，照这逻辑只要每次观念被推翻是不是资助的人都要被抓去关?

这到是真的 看板上就知道 一堆人在那欣喜若狂 更遑论一般大众了 媒体要的是故事性不是真实性 其实多少也是因为大多数人喜欢听故事而不是要了解真实

其实,我也想说去批判50年前的研究,科学界没这么不行吧