Nobody is paying to be disproven. Nearly all people who have claimed they would do so have had their bluffs called, and usually it was always political theater instead of science.
Bitches love to be proven right though, and they will pay decent money to have vague "scientists/experts" tell them that. So that they can then sell that fact.
Whatever-his-name ( Wong? )and his "insulin hypothesis" for his "it's-not-your-fault-you're-fat" du-jour pseudo self-help book had his hypothesis falsified by his own study.
Participants lost the predicted amout of weight based on calculated caloric deficit regardless or if the diet was high or low carbs.
His hypothesis predicted high carbs would result in little or no weight loss through the magic of insulin somehow keeping your body running its basic functions, without taping significantly into fat stores despite the same caloric deficit as someone eating low carb.
So of course he simply doubled-down and keeps asserting his falsified hypothesis as truth.
Meanwhile, anyone who hasen't had their brain damaged by Fatlogic understands if the insulin of fat people is constantly elevated, it's because they eat too much so their body pretty much always has immediately avaliable exess energy to use and store ( so the pancreas must secrete insulin, otherwise the kidneys have to eliminate the excess, and kidneys get damaged if they do that too often ).
And by some "miracle" that just so happened to get confirmed again by Wong's own study. Which he promptly ignored.
I had a sociology professor that told the class that he knew a guy in the field who did studies by commission for companies. When he would get one, he would find whoever in the company commissioned the study (generally the boss or whoever was in charge of commissioning studies) and what he wanted to hear and would simply make the study show whatever that was. That guy made a ton of money because the guy he placated would always call call him back when they needed a new study.
That's not really uncommon. Most sociology/psychology people do that, though often with a lot more lying to themselves about it, because its the only way you can actually have money in the field.
Its actually a pretty shitty situation, because even if you want to do the right thing and pursue truth you just won't get paid, the study won't be published, and you won't get to work anymore. Its a complete waste of time and energy.
And unlike most fields, you can't just go into the applied side to make your money. Because sociologists don't actually have a use, and Therapists make even less money.
Nobody is paying to be disproven. Nearly all people who have claimed they would do so have had their bluffs called, and usually it was always political theater instead of science.
Bitches love to be proven right though, and they will pay decent money to have vague "scientists/experts" tell them that. So that they can then sell that fact.
Whatever-his-name ( Wong? )and his "insulin hypothesis" for his "it's-not-your-fault-you're-fat" du-jour pseudo self-help book had his hypothesis falsified by his own study.
Participants lost the predicted amout of weight based on calculated caloric deficit regardless or if the diet was high or low carbs.
His hypothesis predicted high carbs would result in little or no weight loss through the magic of insulin somehow keeping your body running its basic functions, without taping significantly into fat stores despite the same caloric deficit as someone eating low carb.
So of course he simply doubled-down and keeps asserting his falsified hypothesis as truth.
Meanwhile, anyone who hasen't had their brain damaged by Fatlogic understands if the insulin of fat people is constantly elevated, it's because they eat too much so their body pretty much always has immediately avaliable exess energy to use and store ( so the pancreas must secrete insulin, otherwise the kidneys have to eliminate the excess, and kidneys get damaged if they do that too often ).
And by some "miracle" that just so happened to get confirmed again by Wong's own study. Which he promptly ignored.
I had a sociology professor that told the class that he knew a guy in the field who did studies by commission for companies. When he would get one, he would find whoever in the company commissioned the study (generally the boss or whoever was in charge of commissioning studies) and what he wanted to hear and would simply make the study show whatever that was. That guy made a ton of money because the guy he placated would always call call him back when they needed a new study.
That's not really uncommon. Most sociology/psychology people do that, though often with a lot more lying to themselves about it, because its the only way you can actually have money in the field.
Its actually a pretty shitty situation, because even if you want to do the right thing and pursue truth you just won't get paid, the study won't be published, and you won't get to work anymore. Its a complete waste of time and energy.
And unlike most fields, you can't just go into the applied side to make your money. Because sociologists don't actually have a use, and Therapists make even less money.