Talk:James Rippe
Latest comment: 6 years ago by 114.198.0.7 in topic Sugar controversies
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Sugar controversies edit
Rippe's recent (2016) papers concerning consumption of sugars and playing down the risks associated with them are rather laughable, considering all the research to the contrary. I'm wondering if somebody has called him out on this and if there is a non-OR source that might be appropriate to include.
Here is a link to one page in which he was kind enough to declare his interests at least: https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-11https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-11-55-55 Quote: "JM Rippe has received research funding from the Corn Refiners Association for the present study. The other study authors reported no competing interests."
114.198.0.7 (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)