mustbe20characters20 t1_iyluyyw wrote

Looking at the results this honestly seems perfectly fine.

"Documents suggest Coca-Cola provides direct financial support to institutions and organizations hosting events in exchange for benefits, including influence over proceedings. Coca-Cola also provided direct financial support to speakers and researchers, sometimes conditional on media interviews. Also, indirect financial support passed through Coca-Cola-financed non-profits. Often, such financial support was not readily identifiable, and third-party involvement further concealed Coca-Cola funding."

Coca Cola pays for events and backs researchers, sometimes conditional on media interviews, but that's all fantastic. That's more funding for science, more funding for socialization between scientists, all so coca cola can have a platform to attempt to make themselves look better (presumably).

Typically "X funded y" statements aren't a problem whatsoever as long as there's transparency and the underlying science is still solid. And if it isn't, well, we disregard it.