Just Ask the “Experts” On Coke's
Payroll
Let's face it, virtues are no fun.
Chastity, diligence, charity, patience, kindness, humility,
temperance? BOR-ING! Ah, but vices! Those are
a blast! Pride, envy, sloth, greed, wrath, lust, gluttony –
especially gluttony. Where would we be as a society today without
gluttony?
A few killjoys out
there say we'd all be slimmer, trimmer, and healthier. These Debbie
Downers would have us believe that we can beat back diabetes and bust
obesity by not filling our faces with kajillions of unnecessary empty
calories like the kind you find in snack foods and sugar-saturated
soft drinks. These spoilsports would piss on our parade by telling us
that we can't be healthy if we keep chowing down on potato chips and
cookies and candy bars and guzzling gallons of syrupy beverages.
“Pish-posh,”
says a new panel of “experts.” “What a load of hooey! Our
latest research reveals that the
doomsayers put wa-a-ay too
much emphasis on diet. Exercise, exercise, exercise! That's
the real key. Lots of activity.
And if all that exercise and activity makes you a little thirsty,
just slug down a couple of liters of Coke and you'll be refreshed,
satisfied, and healthy as a horse.”
Did I mention that
these new “experts” are on the payroll of the Coca-Cola Company?
Yeah.
Well,
they didn't actually say the part about slugging down Coke, but it
was inferred from what they did say, which was, “Most of the
focus in the popular media and in the scientific press is, ‘Oh
they’re eating too much, eating too much, eating too much’ —
blaming fast food, blaming sugary drinks and so on. And there’s
really virtually no compelling evidence that that, in fact, is the
cause.”
That drivel dribbled from the lips of
University of South Carolina professor Steven N. Blair, a so-called
“exercise scientist” acting as front man for the newly formed –
and Coca-Cola funded – Global Energy Balance Network. This New
Age-sounding, supposedly non-profit group cites two research papers
that say there is “strong evidence” that the key to preventing
weight gain is not reducing food intake, but “maintaining an active
lifestyle and eating more calories.” The fine print on each
scholarly treatise comes in the form of a footnote that reads: “The
publication of this article was supported by The Coca-Cola Company.”
Does this sound the least little bit
like the same rhetoric that has always flown around tobacco-related
health issues? “Scientists,” operating under the aegis of R.J.
Reynolds, who flatly state that there is no “evidence” linking
cigarettes to cancer?
So let me see if I've got this
straight: decades and decades of research by thousands and thousands
of doctors, dieticians, nutritionists, food scientists, and a cadre
of other folks with lots of letters after their names is now to be
disregarded? Research in which a balance of healthy diet and
adequate physical activity are promoted as critical to overall
well-being is now being kicked to the curb by a handful of shills in
the employ of a major soft drink manufacturer?
Dr. Blair and his cohorts stridently
deny being on the dole from Coke. Certainly, the fact that the soda
giant donated millions towards the outfit's startup should be
irrelevant. As should the $3.5 million in funding Dr. Blair has
received from Coke over the last few years to fund his “research.”
And should we be in any way suspicious of the one million dollar
“unrestricted monetary gift” that Coca-Cola gave to Dr. James O.
Hill, a professor at the the University of Colorado School of
Medicine and the group’s president? Oh, the money actually went to
the University of Colorado Foundation, but when faced with a request
made under the Colorado Open Records Act, the school said that Coke
had provided the money “for the purposes of funding” the Global
Energy Balance Network. And the money that Coca-Cola supplied to
Gregory A. Hand, currently dean of the West Virginia University
School of Public Health and a former USC crony of Blair? Well, that
$806,500 for an “energy flux” study in 2011 and the $507,000
supplied last year to establish the Global Energy Balance Network
should in no way be construed as influence. Hand says, “It makes
perfect sense that companies would want the best science that they
can get.” Would that be the same thing as the best science money
can buy?
Nor should it be in any way suspect
that the group's website is registered to Coca-Cola's Atlanta
headquarters and that Coke is also listed as the site's
administrator. President Hill deflects that contention by stating
that the only reason Coke is in charge of all that web stuff is
because nobody in his group knew how to register a website.
Wait!
Wait un fottuto minuto! This
guy, this “professor,” this “doctor,” this man who wants us
to believe in his pazzo proclamation
regarding our health is going to stand there with his cazzo
faccia hanging out and tell us
that among all the learned gentlemen involved in his endeavor, not
one of them has the
knowledge and ability that my thirteen-year-old niece has to set up
and maintain a website?! What kind of idioti does
he think he's dealing with?
And speaking of that website, the
Network forgot to mention any affiliation with Coca-Cola or any
funding therefrom until somebody pinned their ass to the mat over it.
Then they started spouting stuff like, “They’re not running the
show. We’re running the show.” And, “As soon as we discovered
that we didn’t have not only Coca-Cola but other funding sources on
the website, we put it on there. Does that make us totally corrupt in
everything we do?”
Short answer? Yes.
Unlike the esteemed Dr. Blair, I'm no
scientist. I don't think I've ever even played one on TV. But I do
have a BS detector, and it's emitting an earsplitting tone right now.
“Virtually” no evidence, he says? How about some literal
evidence, then. It takes about an hour to walk off a twenty-ounce
bottle of Coke. If you consume a 2- liter bottle – like a lot of
people do – that's about three-and-a-half hours of walking. Hey,
I've got better things to do with three-and-a-half hours. You know
how long it takes my body to process an equivalent amount of water
with a little lemon? About as long as it takes for a couple of trips
to the bathroom. Come back and talk to me, “Dr.” Blair, after
Coke removes its hand from your pocket.
Actually, Doc, I'm
thinking of investing in a company that makes screen doors for
submarines. I need you and your pals to churn out a couple of
scholarly papers citing something other than an excess of water as
the reason boats sink. Downplay the whole screen door thing and
concentrate on a lack of positive buoyancy and inverse ratios and all
that other scientific stuff. You know, obfuscate. Or, in simpler
terms, if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with
bullshit.
Of course, Coke has a carefully
measured response to the whole imbroglio, citing their “long
history” of supporting scientific research related to their
beverages and topics such as energy balance. “We partner with some
of the foremost experts in the fields of nutrition and physical
activity,” Coke's statement says. “It’s important to us that
the researchers we work with share their own views and scientific
findings, regardless of the outcome, and are transparent and open
about our funding.” Uh-huh. Would it surprise you that a recent
analysis of studies funded by Coke, Pepsi, the American Beverage
Association and the sugar industry found that such studies were five
times more likely to find no link between sugary drinks and weight
gain than studies not funded
by companies with a stake in the results?
“Transparent” seems to be a good
buzzword here. Coke touts transparency in its statement and the
Global Energy Balance Network says it has no problem with accepting
funding from Coca-Cola because they are being so “transparent”
about it. Of course, that transparency only came about after somebody
forced them to wash their windows.
Ever since soft drink sales started
heading for the precipice in the 1990s, Coke has been flogging the
idea that obesity has nothing to do with consuming empty calories.
They would have you believe that if you just go out and run a couple
of extra laps, you can swill down all the Coke you want and never
gain an ounce. Kind of like smoking all the cigarettes you want is
okay as long as you don't inhale. And you can't blame them. After
all, they're in the business of pandering to gluttony. Nobody “needs”
a Coke, you know. And when people start bringing all that annoying
temperance onto the playing field, well......the company's got to do
something. And so they've funded a scholarly “network ” of
abettors and buffoons to make their case for them, all under the
auspices of “science.”
Don't buy it,
folks. Don't drink the Kool-Aid.......or, in this case, the
Coca-Cola. These are not independent scientists operating with your
health and welfare at heart. They are a gaggle of geese honking out a
corporate philosophy, a company of marionettes whose strings are
being pulled from 1 Coca Cola Plaza NW in Atlanta. They'd like to
teach the world to sing in perfect harmony......as long as Coke is
providing the melody. And I think their respective universities
should all be evaluating their qualifications.
By my calculations,
you've spent about seven minutes reading this little rant. I'm sorry
to have taken so much of your time, because that's about
six-and-a-half minutes more than the lunacy this pack of pandering, money grubbing clowns is promoting deserves.
No comments:
Post a Comment