'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat

Post by verisimi » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 4:41 PM UTC

gwerbret wrote: post #35

Of the lead author of this critical letter, the article says: "In her initial correspondence with The Lancet, Stanton declared that she was a part-time employee of Devenish Nutrition, an agricultural-technology and animal-feed company in which she also holds shares."

Post by 8ytecoder » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 4:42 PM UTC

Johnny555 wrote: post #68

speeder wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crop-based corporations and Animal-based corporations tend to NOT be on same side. This is ancient as the bible (the first murder, when the crop farmer murdered the animal farmer). For example, one thing we now know, is that Coca-Cola (a crop-based company) bribed scientists to blame the obesity crisis on meat, and deflect it away from its own products. So no, that person is not joking, animal rights activists are no…

Crop-based corporations and Animal-based corporations tend to NOT be on same side. This is ancient as the bible (the first murder, when the crop farmer murdered the animal farmer). I don't know if anyone at Cargill has read the bible, but they are the largest ag company in the USA and raise livestock, food crops, and animal feed crops. They have over $100B in Global revenue each year.

Post by shzusnwxbwj » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 4:42 PM UTC

crims0n wrote: post #16

narrator wrote: post #7

I think any study that says eating meat is unhealthy has to have a much higher standard of proof because there is so much money floating around from environmental and animal rights activists to fund any scientist who is willing to make that case.

I agree but for different reasons... namely, our ancestors have lived off red meat for hundreds of thousands of years. We can still eat red meat our entire lives with minimal, or at the very least, hard to link direct consequences to our health. It can literally sustain a human for their entire lifespan - so asserting it is unhealthy should be an extremely high bar.

Post by ok123456 » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 4:46 PM UTC

tecleandor wrote: post #55

gruez wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should that matter much? Looking on their website it looks like they sell feeds for all sorts of animals, not just ones producing red meat. For most people, "not eating red meat" means eating pork/chicken not going vegan, so they don't stand to gain much from this study.

You'd be surprised to know that there are some other stuff holding proteins that's not meat. Like fish or chickpeas, or lentils, or beans, or seeds, or buts, or broccoli...

Post by rgrieselhuber » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 4:48 PM UTC

endtime wrote: post #79

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, my comment was sarcasm because this principle is not universally applied.

I agree with your point, but FWIW, it didn't come through clearly in the original comment. Poe's Law strikes again!