Microplastics are even suspected for the low sperm count and power of men after the 70's. We can attribute to them any effect we observe today. It's insane. Let's accept that we cannot causaly link MPs with anything because we do not control the exposure and cannot perform a randomised trial. That is more scientific and sincere.
What Do We Know About the Microplastics Inside Us?
121–124 of 124 posts
Re: What Do We Know About the Microplastics Inside Us?
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet, people can be extremely vigilant about a positive correlation when it doesn’t fit their personal agenda, going as far as questioning methodology in even the least pragmatic ways possible; or, become accepting of the absence of evidence as evidence of absence when weak/no correlation is convenient to their own biases.
I'd say it's very sensible to assume absence up front before there's convincing evidence of presence. Sure, personal biases influence our evidence thresholds a lot, and often people demand unfair rigor that cannot be practically met. But the opposite is also true - sometimes people will believe in presence with zero evidence if they like it enough. The latter is far, far more dangerous than the former.
It’s one thing to believe in presence with zero evidence, and another to _withhold_ judgment when there’s zero evidence. I think you may be conflating the two.
Then again, perhaps we are simply two different types of people. I don’t believe that a complex system can be expected to stay the same when you introduce a new factor into it, while you prefer to adjust much later when effects appear or when evidence achieves total infallibility up to the academic level. I am risk-averse, you like taking it; I’d rather prevent, you’d rather cure. Stating that the former is “far, far more dangerous” is just begging the question though.
Re: What Do We Know About the Microplastics Inside Us?
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone comes out with a study that shows, all other things being equal, decreasing or increasing the amount of ultra-processed foods causes a respective increase or decrease in health, then I will rethink my stance. Until then, I'll keep eating foods consisting of proven healthy ingredients, even if they are classified as Nova 4 ultra-processed, such as lasagna made using my great grandmother's recipe or ancient…
Why would those be nova 4? And it sounds like you're already avoiding some processed foods. Did you mean avoiding ALL processed foods?
I don't know why their ingredients are classified as Nova 4, or why the processing level is defined by ingredients, in the first place. Lasagna contains ricotta which is made from whey, and whey automatically makes something Nova 4. Many ancient Mayan dishes contain achiote seeds, also known as annatto, which also automatically makes something Nova 4.
Achiote seeds add a bright red to yellow color, depending on the concentration, and add a mild earthy flavor. This puts it in the Nova 4 ultra-processed foods category, ostensibly because the color can make food more attractive. This is as opposed saffron stigmas, used in some traditional European dishes, which add a bright red to yellow color, depending on the concentration, and add a mild earthy flavor. Why adding achiote makes something ultraprocessed and adding saffron doesn't isn't explained, but I wonder if there's a predilection toward traditional European foods.
The Nova classification only counts fresh fruits and vegetables as unprocessed, which is Nova 1, so almost all foods are processed foods, Nova 3, or processed ingredients, Nova 2.
I eat healthy food and avoid unhealthy food, but the Nova classification system is so poorly done that it is meaningless. Even going off of actual levels of processing, instead of the ingredients, doesn't help much. One of the earliest processed foods, hominy, is much healthier than the unprocessed counterpart, and when Italians relied on polenta made from unprocessed corn, they became malnourished and suffered from pellagra, while those in America relying on the otherwise identical grits, made from hominy, weren't malnourished.
That's why I go off of actual research proving which ingredients are healthy based on the effects of adding them to or removing them from a diet that otherwise stays consistent in volume and calories, instead of the vibes-based categories the Nova classifications use, and the vague research showing that rich healthy people who exercise eat some things and poor unhealthy people who don't exercise eat other things, but never showing that eating some things actually makes you more healthy and eating other things actually makes you less healthy.
If similar levels of research into ultra-processed foods were applied to other statistics, they'd find that ice cream sales lead to drowning and owning a Ferrari makes you rich.
Re: What Do We Know About the Microplastics Inside Us?
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not right, a negative study often still can give evidence that something is true, but it just didn't meet the p=.05 threshold.
p 0.05 as positive evidence for any purpose other than deciding to rerun the study with a bigger sample size.
That's not true at all, that's a weird generalization that's patently false.
Take things like even certain physics propositions (e.g. discovering new particles) -- can take billions of dollars building a new reactor and years of experiments to find a result.
Anything medical or psychological also can take this result. If a chemical reduces your iq by 5 points over 10 years, it might not be able to do a study that finds that result on an academic budget.