Scientist Who Discredited Meat Guidelines Didn’t Report Past Food Industry Ties
1–10 of 67 posts
Re: Scientist Who Discredited Meat Guidelines Didn’t Report Past Food Industry Ties
#2Dr. Johnston said the real problem is that people don’t want to accept findings that contradict long-held views. “People have very strong opinions,” he said. “Scientists should have intellectual curiosity and be open to challenges to their data. Science is about debate, not about digging your heels in.”
There's a vast difference between not having intellectual curiosity and not wanting to deal with cranks. Dr. Johnston is not challenging any data. He's simply treated the data to a different type of analysis previously deemed inappropriate for dietary studies and lo and behold, has achieved a different result. Unless Dr. Johnston can show this analysis better describes observed effects, which he has not even attempted to do, then there's no reason to give any of this research a second look.
Re: Scientist Who Discredited Meat Guidelines Didn’t Report Past Food Industry Ties
#3Re: Scientist Who Discredited Meat Guidelines Didn’t Report Past Food Industry Ties
#4This smells like a non-story. There’s just not enough there.
Re: Scientist Who Discredited Meat Guidelines Didn’t Report Past Food Industry Ties
#5This smells like a non-story. There’s just not enough there.
Agreed. Seems like an ad-hominem.
There is often a huge lag between funding, submission for publication and final publication. His interpretation of the rules would be widely agreed upon as reasonable.
Re: Scientist Who Discredited Meat Guidelines Didn’t Report Past Food Industry Ties
#6Dr. Johnston said the real problem is that people don’t want to accept findings that contradict long-held views. “People have very strong opinions,” he said. “Scientists should have intellectual curiosity and be open to challenges to their data. Science is about debate, not about digging your heels in.” There's a vast difference between not having intellectual curiosity and not wanting to deal with cranks. Dr. Johnst…
There's a quote from the original NYT article that I found interesting.
> “It is important to recognize that this group reviewed the evidence and found the same risk from red and processed meat as have other experts,” she said in a statement. “So they’re not saying meat is less risky; they’re saying the risk that everyone agrees on is acceptable for individuals.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-can...
Re: Scientist Who Discredited Meat Guidelines Didn’t Report Past Food Industry Ties
#7This smells like a non-story. There’s just not enough there.
Agreed. Seems like an ad-hominem. There is often a huge lag between funding, submission for publication and final publication. His interpretation of the rules would be widely agreed upon as reasonable.
Well, you don't have to attack the bias of the author. You can agree with the author's findings that red meat consumption is correlated with the exact same percentage increase in cancer rates as previous studies have shown. He has not disputed that.
From there, you can say that his analysis is merely word-play.
"18% increase in likelihood for a 6% rate is only 1 more person per hundred on a population scale. Therefore it is only a 1% increase on the population level" is basically all he is saying.
It is fundamentally non-analysis imo: basic arithmetic meant to reframe reality in a way convenient for a desired headline.
Re: Scientist Who Discredited Meat Guidelines Didn’t Report Past Food Industry Ties
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. Seems like an ad-hominem. There is often a huge lag between funding, submission for publication and final publication. His interpretation of the rules would be widely agreed upon as reasonable.
Well, you don't have to attack the bias of the author. You can agree with the author's findings that red meat consumption is correlated with the exact same percentage increase in cancer rates as previous studies have shown. He has not disputed that. From there, you can say that his analysis is merely word-play. "18% increase in likelihood for a 6% rate is only 1 more person per hundred on a population scale. Therefor…
Such logic can make anybody say "wordplay" about any study which contains verbal interpretation of statistics, including the original metastudy.
Re: Scientist Who Discredited Meat Guidelines Didn’t Report Past Food Industry Ties
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, you don't have to attack the bias of the author. You can agree with the author's findings that red meat consumption is correlated with the exact same percentage increase in cancer rates as previous studies have shown. He has not disputed that. From there, you can say that his analysis is merely word-play. "18% increase in likelihood for a 6% rate is only 1 more person per hundred on a population scale. Therefor…
Such logic can make anybody say "wordplay" about any study which contains verbal interpretation of statistics, including the original metastudy.
If a seatbelt makes you 50% safer in the event of a potentially fatal crash, you wouldn't say "it's really a 4% difference because 8% of the population is involved in a potentially fatal accident"
That is purposefully obfuscating the relevant data.
Re: Scientist Who Discredited Meat Guidelines Didn’t Report Past Food Industry Ties
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such logic can make anybody say "wordplay" about any study which contains verbal interpretation of statistics, including the original metastudy.
If a seatbelt makes you 50% safer in the event of a potentially fatal crash, you wouldn't say "it's really a 4% difference because 8% of the population is involved in a potentially fatal accident" That is purposefully obfuscating the relevant data.
The wording you used for your example is purposely unwieldy, but even so it would be still logically valid. It's perfectly valid as well to say that it obfuscates a particular point you are trying to make. However, as humans tend to have different priorities, and values a wording you prefer may be validly presented as obfuscating points other people see as more important.