Coke Spends Lavishly on Pediatricians and Dietitians
Source: New York Times
By ANAHAD O'CONNOR
SEPTEMBER 28, 2015 5:32 PM
Coca-Cola logos were on various items at the Academy of Pediatrics' national conference in 2011.
Credit Alan Greene/DrGreene.com
When the American Academy of Pediatrics needed support for a website it created to promote children’s health, it turned to a surprising partner: Coca-Cola.
The world’s largest maker of sugary beverages, Coca-Cola has given nearly $3 million to the academy over the past six years, making it the only “gold” sponsor of the HealthyChildren.org website. Even though the pediatric academy has said publicly that sugary drinks contribute to the obesity epidemic, the group praises Coke on its website, calling it a “distinguished” company for its commitment to “better the health of children worldwide.”
The extent of the financial ties between Coke and the Academy of Pediatrics was revealed last week when the company released a detailed list of nearly $120 million in grants, large and small, given to medical, health and community organizations since 2010. Not only has Coke’s philanthropy earned it praise from influential medical groups, the soda grants appear to have, in some cases, won the company allies in anti-soda initiatives, wielded influence over health recommendations about soft drinks, and shifted scientific focus away from soda as a factor in the causes of obesity.
The list of Coke donations was released after the company’s chief executive, Muhtar Kent, promised to be transparent about its partnerships in the health community. The move was prompted by criticism that the company has paid for scientific research that plays down the role of Coke products in the spread of obesity, an issue first reported last month in The New York Times.
Read more: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/28/coke-spends-lavishly-on-pediatricians-and-dietitians
NOTE: A version of this article appears in print on 09/29/2015, on page D1 of the NewYork edition with the headline: In Obesity Debate, Coke Spends Lavishly.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Eat up, my hearty!
...you are overdue for the ignore list. You bring nothing -- emphasis on "nothing"-- to the conversation.
As well as completely besmirching your avatar!
Buh-bye! 
He didn't even fully admit to lying as he left all sorts of conflicts of interest off the form, in actually he lied twice besides the lies told by both your authors in the article itself.
As if that wasn't hilarious enough, your woo-site source, "truth"-out calls out Nina Federoff for her conflict of interest, while curiously failing to mention the blatant conflict of the authors. 
Every time you deny channeling batshit crazy woo-sites, I'm just going to repost the evidence which shows that you obviously do, as if pretty much every page of your DU journal wasn't enough. So please do continue to deny it. I think it's utterly hilarious you'd accuse me of "dreaming" and claiming I need to get a grip when you channel batshit crazy woo sites that promote homeopathy and chemtrails.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141219881#post33
I thought most of that stuff you posted links of was a joke or satire. I had to google natural news as I've never heard of it before.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NaturalNews
STARTLING BASIC RESEARCH (links via parents):
https://twitter.com/search?q=%40DystopianUtopia%20%20SLAM%20&src=typd
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749%2807%2900869-X/abstract
"Clinical implications: Understanding the immunogenetics of measles vaccine receptors is important to better understand variations in immune responses to vaccines and to design better vaccines."
STARTLING CLINICAL FINDINGS BY BOARD CERTIFIED PEDIATRICIANS (links via parents):
http://najms.net/wp-content/uploads/v06i03.pdf#page=34 (published 2013, Harvard vetted)
http://paulthomasmd.com/2015/07/23/what-is-the-prevalence-of-adequate-mmr-titers-and-are-they-persisting-in-the-vaccinated-population/ (unpublished 2015)
"Dr Mumper published a small study with no new autism out of her approximately 300 patients. I have a similar experience in my practice of about 1500 patients..."
Zero overall, not 1/68.
STARTLING INSIGHTS FROM PARENTS AND PEDIATRIC SUBSPECIALISTS (links via parents):
http://www.pressherald.com/2014/09/02/maine-voices-breakdown-in-accountability-at-heart-of-decline-in-vaccinations/
http://file.scirp.org/html/22932.html
[center]
[/center]
OFF TOPIC (Interestingly, both issues were raised in the essay cited below on double standards and hypocrisy in mainstream media reporting on conflicts of interest).
Even though the proof was posted of you linking to them repeatedly.
Yes, I actually lie awake at night worrying about that, as are all the other people who have called bullshit on your woo cites in all those other threads in your journal.
Speaking of backfiring....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141219881#post47
Cheers!
Absolutely nothing.
I could ask you the same thing.
Next time I'll be sure and consult you before I post for your expert opinion on what can and can't be posted in a thread.
Just so you don't get confused.
How does this grab you?
"This story was produced for The Washington Post by Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation." KHN ORIGINAL: http://khn.org/news/author/heidi-de-marco/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/with-an-autistic-teenager-life-can-be-very-complicated--and-tiring/2015/09/28/c0c427f0-5be3-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html
Coping with Autism and Puberty
SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 By Heidi de Marco KHN ORIGINAL
A family struggles with what to do when an autistic adolescent becomes aggressive.
This story was produced for The Washington Post by Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation.
MORE: http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/10/age-of-autism-weekly-wrap-things-go-better-with-massive-conflicts-of-interest.html
https://pando.com/2014/03/27/as-journalisms-traditional-models-collapse-billionaires-are-seeing-a-chance-to-own-both-medium-and-message/
As traditional journalism models collapse, billionaires grab the medium and the message
By David Sirota, written on March 27, 2014
Journalism, as you learn in your first J-school class, is all about the inverted pyramid. It is the shape that haunts you as a writer and guides you as an editor. And now, as evidenced by Pew’s new report on the state of the news, it is a shape that increasingly defines the media industry’s business model. It also explains why we're suddenly seeing a raft of new Citizen Kanes’ investing in media and journalism.
<>
These new Medicis, as Reuters Jack Shafer calls them, know that in the media business, there are two places to make money and gain power: distribution and content production. They know that the business of pure distribution - ie. curation, aggregation etc. - is prone to saturation because the Internet makes distribution a relatively inexpensive endeavor (in fact, it is downright cheap compared to earlier epochs when distribution required capital investments in printing presses, TV studios, radio facilities, etc.). They also know that that distribution isn’t necessarily where the most power is any more than oil futures rather than oil hold the energy economy’s true value.
In short, they know that for all the aggregation, curation and other euphemisms used to describe the act of monetizing others' online content for oneself, the most politically valuable input in the media economy is original journalism at the bottom of the inverted pyramid. Own that, and you control the core message that's being promoted via others' distribution conduits higher up on the inverted pyramid.
Thus, understanding that their comparative advantage over competitors is their money, the oligarchs are investing in the place on the inverted pyramid that can’t be occupied on the cheap - they are investing in original journalism at the bottom. As the pyramid becomes ever more narrow down there and wider at the top, that may destabilize the whole media economy and be terrible for society, but it makes the few oligarchs who own the tiny bottom of the pyramid that much more able to control the content that fuels the whole system.
Appreciating this raw power dynamic suddenly makes billionaires’ recent investments in original journalism seem brilliantly shrewd, rather than altruistic, whimsical, or hobby-ish. Sure, there may be some earnest principle at work, but these are indeed opportunistic moves - the kind that are taking advantage of the fact that publicly traded companies are getting out of the business.
<>
#Transparency
So I'll post the proof again since you want to keep denying it.
I post this:
You post this:
I post the proof you read Mike Adams:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022615340
Rome_Vihario! Woomonger extraordinaire!
Check it out: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rome_Viharo
Viharo now dedicates a lot of his time stalking the Wikipedia editors (including admins) involved in banning his sockpuppets. A section on his website "Editors and Admins Involved"[46] lists 10 editors, who find their internet activities recorded, as well as slander posted about them. Viharo has continued this cyberbullying off his website, going further to post personal info he can find about the same people.
So this guy claims he has a "hard earned reputation", but was booted off Wikipedia for posting woo, which he even admits. Now you post his self-pity-fest from a site set up exclusively for whining incessantly about getting banned from Wiki.
Thanks what I really love about you PW. When faced with accusations that you flood this site with woo (which anyone who reads your journal would know), you simply flood this site with more woo.
Brilliant!
Nor that today's disruptor admitted that he is a) trolling and b) stalking the person
who replied to the OP thread:
>> Each time I pull your chain a response comes out. I'm saving them all for later.
Sadly not unusual behaviour but it is their OP as it diverts the thread from raising
people's awareness of the extent of bribery of the "professional experts" by the
corporate manufacturer of the products that said experts should be warning against ...
My answer is I really could give a shit less whose name is on my doctor's tote bag. Anyone who has actually been to just about any convention knows they are routinely sponsored by all sorts of organizations that routinely give out all sorts of shit with their company names and logos plastered all over them which everyone throws in the garbage the day after they get back. If I thought my doctor could be bribed with cheap convention junk, I probably wouldn't be going to that doctor in the first place.
As far as the OP goes, near as I can tell it's just another "click me" headline with very little in the way of substance underneath. If Coke wants to fund groups that are advising people that some of Coke's products can lead to obesity, where exactly is the problem? The thing about quid-pro-quo is that when you forget to include the quo, your allegation kinda falls flat. There's exactly zero evidence presented that Coke is using the promise of any funds or the withholding of any funds to unethically influence anyone. Coke is fully disclosing the groups they are giving money to and those groups are fully disclosing that they are getting money from Coke. Kinda hard to get a conspiracy theory going there, yet the OP tries anyway.
The study listed by the OP, if anyone bothered to actually find it (I suspect most can't be bothered with such factual details), clearly indicates it's funded by Coke. It also clearly indicates that it is researching lifestyle choices and not dietary ones. So the OP is implying Coke is somehow throwing out wrong information that was never even in the scope of the research to begin with. So who really is being misleading here?
The OP goes on to fault Coke because another organization it funds recommends people substitute flavored water, tea, and diet soda for sugary drinks because Coke sells those products too (as if every other drink manufacturer doesn't).
So is there a hazard to American's pouring 152 lbs of sugar down their gullet each year? Undoubtedly. Does Coke deserve part of the credit for this? Undoubtedly. Yet somehow from the OP we must derive that Coke is even more to blame because they are funding efforts to tell people they need to consume less sugar and exercise more because they are handing out $1 tote bags at medical conventions.
So now you have something that has everything to do with this article. Feel free to claim I'm on Coke's payroll or offer some other half-fast snarkery as I'm sure someone will. I can always use the entertainment.
