3 ms·

https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/sep/30/research-red-meat-poses-no-health-risk https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/sep/30/research-red-me... https://www

by N1H1L 5y ago

https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/sep/30/research-red-meat-poses-no-health-risk https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/sep/30/research-red-me... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-can... Good overview of the controversy.

netizen-936824 5y ago
Media reporting is the literal worst way to learn about scientific reporting and studies
- ubercow13 5y ago
  What's a good way? Certainly not reading individual scientific studies yourself.
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    Textbooks, meta-analyses, asking researchers personally (multiples of them), and individual studies (also multiple, never rely on a single one)
ChrisLomont 5y ago
You started with this >It has all fallen apart in the last 2-3 years. as if the scientific community has demonstrated it - it has not, and your articles do not support that claim. Your articles from 2-3 years ago are about one report, and even your articles call into question that report. So no, it has most definitely not "all fallen apart." Interestingly, days after your NYT article, they published this one https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/well/eat/scientist-who-discredited-meat-guidelines-didnt-report-past-food-industry-ties.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/well/eat/scientist-who-di... Go figure, right? He also has papers claiming the opposite of well established sugar research, which, you guessed it, was paid for by a industry trade group that tries to undermine health guidelines to make people believe doctors less and eat bad stuff.... When there are decades of papers and different groups with a similar claim, and one group publishes one counter claim, it makes news. It does not mean the counterclaim will stand further scrutiny. In this case, as looking over google scholar at research following the 2019 claim, it has not withstood more scrutiny. Here is the paper you posted [1]. Here [2] is but one followup paper claiming your paper is basically crap. I can find none supporting the conclusions in [1]. All papers since then I can find still claim meat increases the risk of intestinal and other cancers. Please don't believe or spread outlier results from news stories. [1] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M19-1621 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M19-1621 [2] https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/43/2/265/36125/Red-and-Processed-Meats-and-Health-Risks-How https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/43/2/265/36125/Red...

by N1H1L 5y ago

netizen-936824 5y ago

Media reporting is the literal worst way to learn about scientific reporting and studies

ubercow13 5y ago
What's a good way? Certainly not reading individual scientific studies yourself.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  Textbooks, meta-analyses, asking researchers personally (multiples of them), and individual studies (also multiple, never rely on a single one)

ChrisLomont 5y ago

You started with this >It has all fallen apart in the last 2-3 years. as if the scientific community has demonstrated it - it has not, and your articles do not support that claim. Your articles from 2-3 years ago are about one report, and even your articles call into question that report. So no, it has most definitely not "all fallen apart." Interestingly, days after your NYT article, they published this one https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/well/eat/scientist-who-discredited-meat-guidelines-didnt-report-past-food-industry-ties.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/well/eat/scientist-who-di... Go figure, right? He also has papers claiming the opposite of well established sugar research, which, you guessed it, was paid for by a industry trade group that tries to undermine health guidelines to make people believe doctors less and eat bad stuff.... When there are decades of papers and different groups with a similar claim, and one group publishes one counter claim, it makes news. It does not mean the counterclaim will stand further scrutiny. In this case, as looking over google scholar at research following the 2019 claim, it has not withstood more scrutiny. Here is the paper you posted [1]. Here [2] is but one followup paper claiming your paper is basically crap. I can find none supporting the conclusions in [1]. All papers since then I can find still claim meat increases the risk of intestinal and other cancers. Please don't believe or spread outlier results from news stories. [1] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M19-1621 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M19-1621 [2] https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/43/2/265/36125/Red-and-Processed-Meats-and-Health-Risks-How https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/43/2/265/36125/Red...