Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Type 2 Diabetes
The Guardian
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Oldvatr" data-source="post: 1960236" data-attributes="member: 196898"><p>Looking at the WHO study in the Lancet (online version that publishes reports at a fee, not the proper Lancet) then one interesting fact appears. The methodology that the meta study uses is the PLoS one as referenced in the abstract. Now PLos is owner of Nature magazine, and also Plos One magazine, both of which strongly support WFPB and also accept any old report so long as there is a substantial bung accompanying it. So this immediately calls rhe WHO study into question,</p><p></p><p>Nature and Plos One have long been regarded as having bias and of being a poor source for reference.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Oldvatr, post: 1960236, member: 196898"] Looking at the WHO study in the Lancet (online version that publishes reports at a fee, not the proper Lancet) then one interesting fact appears. The methodology that the meta study uses is the PLoS one as referenced in the abstract. Now PLos is owner of Nature magazine, and also Plos One magazine, both of which strongly support WFPB and also accept any old report so long as there is a substantial bung accompanying it. So this immediately calls rhe WHO study into question, Nature and Plos One have long been regarded as having bias and of being a poor source for reference. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Type 2 Diabetes
The Guardian
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…