Bullshit. You are the one who "invented" the so-called standard. I am
trying to explain to you the difference between transparency and
opacity in the area of professional ethics and integrity.

Here is how it works.

Scientific authors are supposed to declare their conflicts of
interest, period. Once done, one can take that information and keep it
in mind as one peruses the study presented. That is called
transparency. It keeps everyone honest. It allows you to see the study
in the right light and with appropriate critical judgement.

If a studies authors fail to declare any financial interests, then one
is left to believe that they are without conflicts of interest. This
is misleading the reader. It is also patently dishonest,
unprofessional, and shows a fundamental lack on integrity. One is
incapable of evaluating the science in the appropriate light with the
appropriate critical judgement.

Being that 70 to 80% of all research is funded by industry, it is of
critical importance that we know this information. Do you not
understand that simple concept?

TC

He who invented the "standard" continues to do so, and revise as finds
fits his needs.  He invented it when he could not provide any scientific
support for some of his claims and when research support was found and
presented to him that undercut his claims.  After bing at the wrong end of
that process he started to claim that science, all scinence, was suspect
and that any that contridicted his unsupported claims was a fraud and the
results really didn't contridict his unsupported claims.  By this process
he invented the standard, if some research was supported by some group it
should be tossed.  My reminder to him of this from time to time is just a
bit of chain yanking to make the point, when hen he finds it convient to
present info based on support from industry but in favor of his ideas.  
His attempt to take some "higher" ground on the question is a source of
some amusement to me, especially now when he finds science to his liking
because, finally, some real research outside of diet book is now being
done on low carb and the whole question of macro sources and weight
status. The point all along is that the quality of the research must
always be found in itself, unless fraud can be shown.

I take your point, there is a danger of bias being introduced into
published info and it must be taken with a grain of salt.  There is a
process in science that over time real fraud gets caught, but that is not
what is at issue in your observation.  It is when info is massaged by what
is included and what is left out or minimized etc. that becomes the
problem.  But even here this tends to be balanced over time as competing
intrests, both commercial and academic and philosophical, present their
best.  This process leads in time to a concensus of the middle ground that
most folk hold.  The charge used in this group by "he who makes standards"
that any research is a fraud if some group supporting it has a vested
intrest and that can not be maintained for long in light of the above.  
For each beef council pushing the consumption of more meat by supporting
studies to show some benefit for their products there is a agri biz who is
eager to make known the benefits of nuts or some other commoidity.   This
can in fact be healthy because it forms in time the middle concensus of
science.  Just because the beef and the nut intrests support the research
to show the respective benefits of the nutrition of their products is not
based on fraud or faking data and so on as is the charge.  The same thing
happens with various schools of thought on a scientific question, such as
some theory in cosmology and the evolution of the universe.  But "he who
makes standards" starts with the notion that all science is suspect and
can easily be dismissed, especially if it contridicts one's dearly held
view about something.  He now wants to qualify that anti science by
qualifying whtt is "good" and "bad" science now that low carb is in it's
infancy in scienctific research.