6 ms·

> Anne Raben is recipient of research funding from the Dairy Research Institute, Rosemont, IL, USA and the Danish Agriculture & Food Council. > Tine Tholstrup

by tpush 4y ago

> Anne Raben is recipient of research funding from the Dairy Research Institute, Rosemont, IL, USA and the Danish Agriculture & Food Council. > Tine Tholstrup is recipient of research grants from the Danish Dairy Research Foundation and the Dairy Research Institute, Rosemont, IL. > Sabita S. Soedamah-Muthu received funding from the Global Dairy Platform, Dairy Research Institute and Dairy Australia for meta-analyses on cheese and blood lipids and on dairy and mortality. > Ian Givens is recipient of research grants from UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), UK Medical Research Council (MRC), Arla Foods UK, AAK-UK (both in kind), The Barham Benevolent Foundation, Volac UK, DSM Switzerland and Global Dairy Platform. He is a consultant for The Bio-competence Centre of Healthy Dairy Products, Tartu, Estonia, and in the recent past for The Dairy Council (London). > Arne Astrup is recipient of research grants from Arla Foods, DK; Danish Dairy Research Foundation; Global Dairy Platform; Danish Agriculture & Food Council; GEIE European Milk Forum, France. > He received financial support from dairy organisations for attendance at the Eurofed Lipids Congress (2014) in France and the meeting of The Federation of European Nutrition Societies (2015) in Germany. Emphasis mine.

josephcsible 4y ago
How is your comment anything other than an ad hominem/poisoning the well?
- jonplackett 4y ago
  How is it anything other than a fact?
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    It is factual, but that doesn't make it not poisoning the well.
    - jonplackett 4y ago
      Sources are still important. Biases are real no?
- oldgradstudent 4y ago
  Pointing out conflicts of interest is not an ad hominem attack.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- burnished 4y ago
  Just to take you more seriously than other commenters An ad hominem is an attack against the person and not the argument, and, well, you got a point there. I think what would make it a fallacious argument is if the attack against the person was irrelevant - pretend instead they shared incidents of inexcusable rudeness, which would be bad but irrelevant to the published findings. Instead it is highly relevant. Conflicts of interest undermine trust because they pervert outcomes. This is a situation where trust is very important, hence pointing out conflicts of interest to the person is relevant to the research. Poisoning the well refers to pre-emptively discrediting a persons argument. Which, yeah, I could see that. Again though the information is relevant and in this case means that you should closely scrutinize their findings before use, as opposed to accepting them at face value due to a damaged trust. I don’t think it makes sense to apply definitions from formal debate broadly to other contexts. If you had made the argument yourself that you implied by invoking those names you would have seen why they didn’t apply. It allows for extremely lazy rhetoric where you disregard any statement that makes some one look bad as an ad hominem. In a debate it makes sense to separate arguer from argument - in most other contexts it does not. You don’t separate the plumber from their previous plumbing, and you shouldn’t separate the report, the science, the scientists, the fucking statistics from the funding.
oifjsidjf 4y ago
The sad state of nutrition (and pharma and fake meat studies) is that this is everywhere...from meat to diary to plants to Adventist Church sponsoring studies which (obviously) confirms their vegeterian-interwined faith. The same goes for "plant milk" studies etc...which people like to compare real milk to. Some extra info on diary: Traditionaly most cultures eat fermented diary (cheese, kefir,...) NOT raw milk. Mongols etc... who are known to drink milk drink horse milk, which has a different nutritional composition than cows milk, so eg people saying "Mongols drink milk bro so you should also bro" forget to mention that they don't drink the same milk as we on the west do.
- CyanBird 4y ago
  > Traditionaly most cultures eat fermented diary (cheese, kefir,...) NOT raw milk Raw milk is sorts of dangerous and unpractical, that's why we pasteurize it first, most cultures didn't had access to pasteurization so they managed in other ways to preserve it longer It is important to differentiate normative from prescriptions
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    Raw milk is very dangerous and impractical if you're living in an urban area in the early modern era, when the milk had to be transported long distances to get to you, particularly before refrigeration. But if you live in a pre-modern dairy farming community, then raw milk is very practical and not particularly dangerous. There's no doubt that people in such communities drank a lot of it.
- VincentEvans 4y ago
  Your “most cultures” claim ignores most of eastern Europe where it’s perfectly traditional to drink milk straight from under a cow. Urban population doesn’t do it anymore, same way how most people no longer use an outhouse or bring their water from the well, but visiting traditional rural villages in my childhood I was offered milk straight from a bucket from a freshly milked cow that just returned from a pasture. They also made cheese, butter, cream, fermented kefir, etc, for the same reasons Irish have a million potato dishes. What I described is true for Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, Poland, but I strongly suspect is widespread everywhere where people own cows in their household. It’s just odd to see a claim that “most cultures mainly drink fermented milk” declared with such certainty.
eloff 4y ago
Yes there’s a conflict of interest. No, it does not necessarily invalidate the result. Claiming that it does is actually quite insulting to the scientists involved. Making that claim without even a cursory examination of the study design is just being a shit disturber.
- s_m_t 4y ago
  Study says it assesses the "totality of scientific evidence" but conveniently ignores all of the scientific evidence for the negative side effects of dairy. It is a very stupid study.
  - scythe 4y ago
    >conveniently ignores all of the scientific evidence You should justify this assertion by highlighting the ignoring you claim occurs in the study. Here is a study with similar conclusions whose authors do not appear to have conflicts: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-012-0418-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-012-0418-1
    - Retric 4y ago
      That study has a far narrower scope, and neither looked at all health impacts from milk consumption because the literature isn’t there. “Milk and dairy products: good or bad for human health? An assessment of the totality of scientific evidence” did look at many health impacts and all cause mortality which is a proxy for heath. But it didn’t particularly get into why it was dismissing studies showing decreased lifespan associated with milk consumption beyond listing studies showing the reverse. By comparison it spent a while focusing on why the association with colorectal cancer may not be an issue. That said, there isn’t a good way to measure all health impacts from specific foods because total health is so complicated. On top of this there are many confounding factors, presumably Truffles could be linked to health because consumption is linked to wealth. But nobody wants to publish “Milk: not extremely poisonous, more research needed.”
    - s_m_t 4y ago
HellsMaddy 4y ago
“How the dairy industry designs misleading studies” - https://youtu.be/VYHiT7wJFk0 https://youtu.be/VYHiT7wJFk0
xdennis 4y ago
Although I'm pro-milk, I do find these connections suspect. In modern times, most of us agree that we should "follow the science". But few people are actual scientists, who can check the facts themselves. Instead, we treat "follow the science" tribally and accept as "scientific" whatever source we trust by other (non scientific) means. For example, we trust as "scientific" people with the same political alignment. As such, I find it pretty useless whenever I hear about a study saying "x is bad/good for you". It's not like I can check. (There's a website listing headlines about how eggs, sleeping, and the rest, both cause, prevent, and have no effect on cancer, obesity, and the rest. I can't find it right now though.) The only guiding principles I find useful are: * has it been used for multiple decades, centuries, millennia => probably good * has it been banned in multiple countries => probably bad
- jmpman 4y ago
  Should we drink milk and eat meat in the same meal?
nvader 4y ago
Thanks for pointing this out. I skimmed the report and was mildly curious about their sources of funding, but I was too lazy to do the searching to find what you did.

by tpush 4y ago

josephcsible 4y ago

How is your comment anything other than an ad hominem/poisoning the well?

jonplackett 4y ago
How is it anything other than a fact?
- josephcsible 4y ago
  It is factual, but that doesn't make it not poisoning the well.
  - jonplackett 4y ago
    Sources are still important. Biases are real no?
oldgradstudent 4y ago
Pointing out conflicts of interest is not an ad hominem attack.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
burnished 4y ago
Just to take you more seriously than other commenters An ad hominem is an attack against the person and not the argument, and, well, you got a point there. I think what would make it a fallacious argument is if the attack against the person was irrelevant - pretend instead they shared incidents of inexcusable rudeness, which would be bad but irrelevant to the published findings. Instead it is highly relevant. Conflicts of interest undermine trust because they pervert outcomes. This is a situation where trust is very important, hence pointing out conflicts of interest to the person is relevant to the research. Poisoning the well refers to pre-emptively discrediting a persons argument. Which, yeah, I could see that. Again though the information is relevant and in this case means that you should closely scrutinize their findings before use, as opposed to accepting them at face value due to a damaged trust. I don’t think it makes sense to apply definitions from formal debate broadly to other contexts. If you had made the argument yourself that you implied by invoking those names you would have seen why they didn’t apply. It allows for extremely lazy rhetoric where you disregard any statement that makes some one look bad as an ad hominem. In a debate it makes sense to separate arguer from argument - in most other contexts it does not. You don’t separate the plumber from their previous plumbing, and you shouldn’t separate the report, the science, the scientists, the fucking statistics from the funding.

oifjsidjf 4y ago

The sad state of nutrition (and pharma and fake meat studies) is that this is everywhere...from meat to diary to plants to Adventist Church sponsoring studies which (obviously) confirms their vegeterian-interwined faith. The same goes for "plant milk" studies etc...which people like to compare real milk to. Some extra info on diary: Traditionaly most cultures eat fermented diary (cheese, kefir,...) NOT raw milk. Mongols etc... who are known to drink milk drink horse milk, which has a different nutritional composition than cows milk, so eg people saying "Mongols drink milk bro so you should also bro" forget to mention that they don't drink the same milk as we on the west do.

CyanBird 4y ago
> Traditionaly most cultures eat fermented diary (cheese, kefir,...) NOT raw milk Raw milk is sorts of dangerous and unpractical, that's why we pasteurize it first, most cultures didn't had access to pasteurization so they managed in other ways to preserve it longer It is important to differentiate normative from prescriptions
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  Raw milk is very dangerous and impractical if you're living in an urban area in the early modern era, when the milk had to be transported long distances to get to you, particularly before refrigeration. But if you live in a pre-modern dairy farming community, then raw milk is very practical and not particularly dangerous. There's no doubt that people in such communities drank a lot of it.
VincentEvans 4y ago
Your “most cultures” claim ignores most of eastern Europe where it’s perfectly traditional to drink milk straight from under a cow. Urban population doesn’t do it anymore, same way how most people no longer use an outhouse or bring their water from the well, but visiting traditional rural villages in my childhood I was offered milk straight from a bucket from a freshly milked cow that just returned from a pasture. They also made cheese, butter, cream, fermented kefir, etc, for the same reasons Irish have a million potato dishes. What I described is true for Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, Poland, but I strongly suspect is widespread everywhere where people own cows in their household. It’s just odd to see a claim that “most cultures mainly drink fermented milk” declared with such certainty.

eloff 4y ago

Yes there’s a conflict of interest. No, it does not necessarily invalidate the result. Claiming that it does is actually quite insulting to the scientists involved. Making that claim without even a cursory examination of the study design is just being a shit disturber.

s_m_t 4y ago
Study says it assesses the "totality of scientific evidence" but conveniently ignores all of the scientific evidence for the negative side effects of dairy. It is a very stupid study.
- scythe 4y ago
  >conveniently ignores all of the scientific evidence You should justify this assertion by highlighting the ignoring you claim occurs in the study. Here is a study with similar conclusions whose authors do not appear to have conflicts: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-012-0418-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-012-0418-1
  - Retric 4y ago
    That study has a far narrower scope, and neither looked at all health impacts from milk consumption because the literature isn’t there. “Milk and dairy products: good or bad for human health? An assessment of the totality of scientific evidence” did look at many health impacts and all cause mortality which is a proxy for heath. But it didn’t particularly get into why it was dismissing studies showing decreased lifespan associated with milk consumption beyond listing studies showing the reverse. By comparison it spent a while focusing on why the association with colorectal cancer may not be an issue. That said, there isn’t a good way to measure all health impacts from specific foods because total health is so complicated. On top of this there are many confounding factors, presumably Truffles could be linked to health because consumption is linked to wealth. But nobody wants to publish “Milk: not extremely poisonous, more research needed.”
  - s_m_t 4y ago

HellsMaddy 4y ago

“How the dairy industry designs misleading studies” - https://youtu.be/VYHiT7wJFk0 https://youtu.be/VYHiT7wJFk0

xdennis 4y ago

Although I'm pro-milk, I do find these connections suspect. In modern times, most of us agree that we should "follow the science". But few people are actual scientists, who can check the facts themselves. Instead, we treat "follow the science" tribally and accept as "scientific" whatever source we trust by other (non scientific) means. For example, we trust as "scientific" people with the same political alignment. As such, I find it pretty useless whenever I hear about a study saying "x is bad/good for you". It's not like I can check. (There's a website listing headlines about how eggs, sleeping, and the rest, both cause, prevent, and have no effect on cancer, obesity, and the rest. I can't find it right now though.) The only guiding principles I find useful are: * has it been used for multiple decades, centuries, millennia => probably good * has it been banned in multiple countries => probably bad

jmpman 4y ago
Should we drink milk and eat meat in the same meal?

nvader 4y ago

Thanks for pointing this out. I skimmed the report and was mildly curious about their sources of funding, but I was too lazy to do the searching to find what you did.