5 ms·

They also have more to lose if they are wrong. They would have to admit they pushed something wrong for so long. So they need to double down.

• p_j_w 3y ago
  I could imagine this sort of thing having an impact on a scattered group here and there, but these are not static groups. Why would a member who joined 10 years ago would give a shit about doubling down for the sake of the reputation of the same group from 40 years ago?
  • graphe 3y ago
    Look at the food pyramid. You're advocating for the same kind of diet that focuses on. It's known to be outdated, wrong and unhealthy.
    • p_j_w 3y ago
      That's an example of a body of scientists changing its recommendations when there's data available to support it, which is what GP was trying to argue wouldn't happen because it'd make them look bad. I'm not advocating for any kind of diet, though. I'm advocating for trusting the consensus opinion of multiple independent groups of scientists to determine what the data does and does not say about what's healthy.
      • graphe 3y ago
        There is no consensus. There are different consensuses. That group has a consensus based on false evidence. Nordic countries have another consensus based on real evidence. https://nordstjernan.com/news/food/4668/ https://nordstjernan.com/news/food/4668/
        • bsmith 3y ago
          That link recommends cutting fats, and increasing the amount of bread and vegetable oil. I can't take their advice seriously.
          • merry_flame 3y ago
            Increase the amount from a baseline of zero as a response to a trend towards paleo. Sounds much fairer that your reading of it.
• orangepurple 3y ago
  It wouldn't be the first time a reputable research group threw off an entire field for decades and millions of dollars wasted: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/faked-beta-amyloid-data-what-does-it-mean https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/faked-beta-amyloid...