3 ms·
>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 s
by 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 agoThat 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 agoThe studies aren't doing the same thing. Yours looks at only the effects on obesity, cardiovascular, and metabolic disease. The OP's study purports to look at all health effects.