Warnings about processed meat fail the test of science;
A new re-analysis of the science concerning links between processed meat and chronic disease indicates that studies showing a relationship between the two are very low quality and suffer from, as the authors put it, “serious risk of bias and imprecision.”
This conclusion is unsurprising, as it follows a recent set of analyses that rocked the nutrition world. That earlier set of studies, published in Annals of Internal Medicine earlier this month, concluded that guidelines warning us to consume less red and processed meat are based on evidence with very low certainty. The researchers who performed those analyses asserted there is no way to determine, for any given individual, what the risks or benefits of eating meat might be.
Whiplash injuries on the rise as public attempts to follow the science.
The author of the second article got it right when she refers to “knowledge monopolies”.
I saw that sort of thing while I was a grad student, particularly during my doctoral studies. Originality and novelty, on the whole, are openly discouraged. Also, one must not investigate anything that isn’t well-funded. (Sir Ernest Rutherford had an answer to that when, one day, he said to his staff, “Gentlemen, we’ve run out of money. Now we must think.”)
Galileo would have been pilloried in today’s research community and Sir Isaac Newton would have been sent packing.
One of the best examples of this I have ever come across was a young female scientist who studied gender determination in sea turtles. She was never able to get her pet science properly funded until one day, realizing that the warmer interior produces females and the cooler exterior of a nest produces males, she linked her research to climate change in her application for funding. Will sea turtles go extinct because climate change is raising the temperatures on the beach resulting in an imbalance of gender? It’s total garbage of course and she knew it because it’s all about local conditions of a nest a beach but she went ahead anyway. By linking her research to climate change she hit the funding jack pot. Suddenly she had all the funding she could want and several plum academic job offers. She openly admitted to me that she thinks the entire anthropogenic climate change field is a bunch of hooey but she’s happy to get the money. Her science is important and if she has to suck up to climate change to get funding, well she can live with that. We have turned entire generations of scientists into whores.
Brought to you by the same high quality research as second hand smoke. Good thing is, I quit smoking 10 years ago and don’t have to tell anyone to go eff themselves.
I kind of disagree on that one because my wife is asthmatic and second hand smoke causes her to have an asthma attack.
I didn’t invent the opinion that asthma is to some degree or even a large degree a psychological disorder but it’s out there.
scar, I quit over twenty years ago. I still remember the exact date. Nowadays, when I walk by someone smoking, it’s like walking past a bakery for me. The only difference is that after quitting dozens of times before, I finally realized that little voice in my head was lying to me. that “One won’t hurt” mantra, was always my downfall.
A dietician or nutritionist, not sure which, told me that it doesn’t make a difference if you drain the grease from bacon, a pound of bacon is a pound of bacon. Won’t be listening to those clowns again.
Now a pound of bacon at the grocery store is only 12 Ounces.
Yeah rd, but double the price of what it was.
Re: science
https://welovetrump.com/2021/06/16/parents-sent-their-kids-face-masks-to-a-lab-the-results-are-sick/\\\\\
I just had a CT scan done and my calcium score, meaning arterial plaque level (calcium is always present in arterial plaque and makes an accurate proxy), after 60+ years of eggs, butter, bacon, steak, cheese, milk and other yum yums, was… zero. My dad had heart disease pretty bad by age 65, but he smoked unfiltered Sweet Caps until he was in his mid 50s, when his doctor talked him into switching to filtered, and he started smoking Rothmans. I started smoking at 14 (stealing his Rothmans), and in the best stroke of luck ever, the older kids I was trying to ingratiate myself with by smoking told me to piss off, and I wasn’t yet hooked, so I stopped. Whew.
Heart disease is not any one factor. Some people can smoke three packs a day and live to 85. Others drop dead at 40. It depends on your genetics plus a host of environmental factors. One of our geneticists used to say to people with a certain gene variant:
“Everyone knows an Uncle Joe who smoked three packs a day and died at 90 when he fell off the roof cleaning his gutters. With this gene variant, this is not you. Quit smoking or die young, it’s as simple as that.”
Maybe your father had genes that were bad for smoking but fine for high cholesterol diets and you got lucky by inheriting that and not smoking.
Of course, this “new re-analysis” was funded by Opplysningskontoret for egg og kjøtt (Office for Information on Eggs and Meat), a private organization that’s mandated to promote the interests of the Norwegian meat and egg industries.
So, take it with a grain of salt (but only a grain, as too much sodium is also bad for you, until it’s not).