Another day, another settled scientific consensus debunked — this one about the dangers of red meat.
Surprise, surprise, turns out red meat is not so dangerous after all.
But-but-but Settled scientific consensus!
Wake up, y’all — it’s all bullshit.
Remember how salt and fat and coffee were poison … and now aren’t?
Anyway, before we get to my favorite part, here’s the news from the far-left New York Times:
[O]n Monday, in a remarkable turnabout, an international collaboration of researchers produced a series of analyses concluding that the advice, a bedrock of almost all dietary guidelines, is not backed by good scientific evidence.
If there are health benefits from eating less beef and pork, they are small, the researchers concluded. Indeed, the advantages are so faint that they can be discerned only when looking at large populations, the scientists said, and are not sufficient to tell individuals to change their meat-eating habits.
Raise your hand if you are surprised by this…
I’m not.
My approach to everything — except TV and coffee and Coca Cola and Blu-rays — has always been moderation.
Here is what I think is the key to this latest finding (emphasis mine):
The new reports are based on three years of work by a group of 14 researchers in seven countries, along with three community representatives, directed by Dr. Johnston. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest and did the studies without outside funding.
In three reviews, the group looked at studies asking whether eating red meat or processed meats affected the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer.
To assess deaths from any cause, the group reviewed 61 articles reporting on 55 populations, with more than 4 million participants. The researchers also looked at randomized trials linking red meat to cancer and heart disease (there are very few), as well as 73 articles that examined links between red meat and cancer incidence and mortality.
In each study, the scientists concluded that the links between eating red meat and disease and death were small, and the quality of the evidence was low to very low.
“Without outside funding.”
Let me repeat that… “Without outside funding.”
See what happens to scientists when the funding doesn’t come from an interested party, from someone with skin in the game…
But I did promise I would get to my favorite part, and here it is… A look at just how unscientific the scientific community is — and once again the emphasis is mine:
Some called for the journal’s editors to delay publication altogether. In a statement, scientists at Harvard warned that the conclusions “harm the credibility of nutrition science and erode public trust in scientific research.”
Yes, by all means, let’s withhold information from a scientific study out of the fear this science will erode public trust in science because withholding science to protect science will increase our trust in science because hiding science is The New Science.
Look at that! So-called scientists are openly calling for a cover-up!
I am totally fine with scientists disputing this new red meat study, arguing against it, declaring it flawed, calling for more studies. That kind of debate and challenge is exactly what you want in a community of scientists.
But to ask for the report to be blacklisted tells you everything you need to know about the state of our so-called scientific community.
Which brings me to Global Cooling Global Warming Climate Change…
If the so-called scientific community is willing to blacklist a report that says it’s okay to enjoy a good ole American cheeseburger now and again, imagine the efforts involved to cover up anything that disproves the religion of Climate Change.
These idiots are already 0-41 with their climate doomsday predictions, they already got salt, red meat, fat, and coffee wrong, but let’s completely destroy the most successful economic system in history and give up all our freedoms because the global temperature might have increased by one degree.
Read more at Breitbart
“…scientists at Harvard warned that the conclusions “harm the credibility of nutrition science and erode public trust in scientific research.”
That is probably the “Bloomberg School of Medicine”. Yes, that Bloomberg – ex-mayor of New York City. “No more 24oz sodas – bad for you.”
He will probably buy his way into the Democratic nomination process somewhere along the line.
Screw PETA the World Recourse Institute,the UN and all you vegan idiots here is a study that blows your mindless nonsense out of the water go out and have a Cheese Burger and tell those Nit-Wits munching their Carrot sticks to Take a hike
Not publishing the result because of “harm the credibility of nutrition science and erode public trust in scientific research.” It is way too late. Decades ago after one reversal after another on the dangers of various foods, I started ignoring these studies. Obviously eating too much sugar or eating in such away to cause being over weight isn’t good, but these studies can’t be trusted.
The studies concluding that meat is bad have to have some influence to the link to green house gasses. This part is real. Cattle produce as much green house gasses as all transportation. Since anthropological climate change is a fraud, that isn’t a problem. There are also those who believe in being vegetarian or vegan for motives that have nothing to do with climate change.
From the National Post article (https://nationalpost.com/health/diet-fitness/no-beef-isnt-bad-for-you-scientists-conclude-there-is-no-need-to-eat-less-red-or-processed-meat?video_autoplay=true)
While “excellent scientists,” Dr. David Jenkins disagreed with the panel’s conclusions. “They should not be making recommendations on this highly connected and sensitive issue, namely, meat consumption, linked as it is to GHGE (greenhouse gas emissions), climate change, our whole attitude to other life forms — in short, connected to existential issues for life on this planet,” said Jenkins, a University of Toronto nutrition scientist and staff physician at St. Michael’s Hospital.
Science is now the New Science
I don’t know why this subject is so radioactive. The original announcement of this paper at https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190930215122.htm included a link to the Harvard rebuttal. I’ve never seen an article on any research include an argument against it. Usually the opposition would have to write and publish their own peer-reviewed journal article.
The Harvard criticism asks why a prestigious medical journal (Annals of Internal Medicine) would “publish dietary guideline recommendations by a self-appointed panel?” as if scientists don’t decide for themselves what subjects they will study and write on. It also points out that only 2 of the 14 authors are nutritional scientists. So, like in climate, these aren’t the right kind of scientists.
Quit it! Your advocating dangerous concepts like common sense, the scientific method and rational thought. I guess your next stop will be some form of “re-education camp”…
They already have “re-education camps” … they are called universities.
….. Ha! Ha! We should only call these —- “Nutritional STUDIES” as it is not science….. likewise we all should call all claims by the Alarmist Catastrophic Climate Cult —-“Climate STUDIES” as they are not science….. keep up the good work…. we Skeptics are getting some traction with this information you hard working skeptics are producing…. thanks.