John Ioannidis Aims His Bazooka at Nutrition Science (2018)
1–10 of 85 posts
Re: John Ioannidis Aims His Bazooka at Nutrition Science (2018)
#2criticizing nutrition science is ... er ... a low-hanging fruit (sorry)
Re: John Ioannidis Aims His Bazooka at Nutrition Science (2018)
#3About time. This is the type of crap that gave us "eggs are the equivalent of smoking cigarettes", "red meat causes cancer", "Coconut oil is pure poison" and many more...
Re: John Ioannidis Aims His Bazooka at Nutrition Science (2018)
#4About time. This is the type of crap that gave us "eggs are the equivalent of smoking cigarettes", "red meat causes cancer", "Coconut oil is pure poison" and many more...
“The World Cancer Research Fund report Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer provided advice on red and processed meat in 2007.
The organisation said the evidence that red and processed meats are causes of bowel cancer is convincing. It advises that people eat no more than 500g of red meat a week (around 70g a day) and avoid processed meats.”
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/red-meat-and-the-risk-...
Re: John Ioannidis Aims His Bazooka at Nutrition Science (2018)
#5My favorite quote from Ioannidis:
“Science is a noble endeavor, but it’s also a low-yield endeavor,” he says. “I’m not sure that more than a very small percentage of medical research is ever likely to lead to major improvements in clinical outcomes and quality of life. We should be very comfortable with that fact.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-da...
Re: John Ioannidis Aims His Bazooka at Nutrition Science (2018)
#6acsh.org == industry front group
Re: John Ioannidis Aims His Bazooka at Nutrition Science (2018)
#7criticizing nutrition science is ... er ... a low-hanging fruit (sorry)
That's nuts.
Re: John Ioannidis Aims His Bazooka at Nutrition Science (2018)
#8acsh.org == industry front group
It really is, but it can be helpful to do more than just claim something, and rather back it up a bit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_on_Science_...
In 1979, the information director of the FDA said, "Whelan just makes blanket endorsements of food additives. Her organization is a sham, an industry front."[31] In 1980, ACSH co-founder Frederick J. Stare was chairman of ACSH's Board of Directors and sought funding from US tobacco company Philip Morris USA for ACSH's activities, stating that he believed financially supporting ACSH would be to Phillip Morris' benefit.[26][27] In the early 1990s, ACSH decided to stop reporting its funding.[32] Their 1991 report shows that many corporations contributed funds.[32] In 1982, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a consumer advocacy group, published a report on ACSH's practices that stated, "ACSH seems to arrive at conclusions before conducting studies. Through voodoo or alchemy, bodies of scientific knowledge are transmogrified into industry-oriented position statements."[33] CSPI director Michael F. Jacobson said of ACSH, '"This organization promotes confusion among consumers about what is safe and what isn't.... ACSH is using a slick scientific veneer to obscure and deny truths that virtually everyone else agrees with."[34]
Re: John Ioannidis Aims His Bazooka at Nutrition Science (2018)
#9About time. This is the type of crap that gave us "eggs are the equivalent of smoking cigarettes", "red meat causes cancer", "Coconut oil is pure poison" and many more...
“The World Cancer Research Fund report Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer provided advice on red and processed meat in 2007. The organisation said the evidence that red and processed meats are causes of bowel cancer is convincing. It advises that people eat no more than 500g of red meat a week (around 70g a day) and avoid processed meats.” https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/red-meat-an…
So how much did they weight the utility of eating red meat in order to conclude that severely restricting it would be worth the .074% decrease in death risk? Because that doesn't seem like a significant risk.
https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-...
Re: John Ioannidis Aims His Bazooka at Nutrition Science (2018)
#10About time. This is the type of crap that gave us "eggs are the equivalent of smoking cigarettes", "red meat causes cancer", "Coconut oil is pure poison" and many more...
“The World Cancer Research Fund report Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer provided advice on red and processed meat in 2007. The organisation said the evidence that red and processed meats are causes of bowel cancer is convincing. It advises that people eat no more than 500g of red meat a week (around 70g a day) and avoid processed meats.” https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/red-meat-an…
From your link:
>This is because there is probably a link between eating a lot of red and processed meat, and bowel (colorectal) cancer.
Probably? Link? "Link" as in "co-occurring but not necessarily causally related"? No references to the studies or methods? This is the same quality material that has been used to promote eating less fat for several decades, while obesity exploded to record levels.