[cxcorp]

> A wasabi company, Kinjirushi Co., provided funding, though the researchers say the company had no role in the study itself.

I'm sure.

[perihelions]

Also relevant:

- "In 2018, Buckley and the other nine senior members of the editorial board resigned, claiming that MDPI "pressured them to accept manuscripts of mediocre quality and importance."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrients_(journal)

https://www.science.org/content/article/open-access-editors-...

(This is the journal that accepted the OP study).

[TapWaterBandit]

Even before reading this I definitely got vibes of "Wine makers find drinking red wine has benefits" or "Starbucks finds that coffee is the ultimate health drink" etc.

[connicpu]

"1-2 glasses of wine a few days a week associated with better health outcomes" was true, but it leaves out "1-2 glasses of wine a few days a week associated with wealth". There's some correlations there, but neither statement is pointing the finger at the causation.

[kazinator]

Funding of the study is a role in the study itself, since it is the study itself that requires the actual money.

[wnevets]

Some how I was able to guess this was the case without having any prior knowledge of this study.

[astrange]

This is obnoxious. You cannot disprove a scientific study by pointing at who funded it, and a properly constructed one won't be able to hide bad results since it'd be preregistered.

[glimshe]

He doesn't have the burden of disproving it, the study has the burden of proving its claims. I consider studies funded by an interested party as weak evidence at best - perhaps enough to encourage an independent party to conduct another study.

[thsksbd]

No, you cant disprove a study by the source of funding;Truth doesnt care who funds it.

But its also not obnoxious not to be helplessly naive that you don't scrutinize sources using effective heuristics.

[kazinator]

Yes you can. Identification of a conflict-of-interest bias is different from argumentum ad hominem.