Meat is good for you and safe but wait...

[Doctor Amadeus]

Scientist Who Discredited Meat Guidelines Didn't Report Past Food Industry Ties

A surprising new study challenged decades of nutrition advice and gave consumers the green light to eat more red and processed meat. But what the study didn’t say is that its lead author has past research ties to the meat and food industry.

The new report, published this week in the Annals of Internal Medicine, stunned scientists and public health officials because it contradicted long-standing nutrition guidelines about limiting consumption of red and processed meats. The analysis, led by Bradley C. Johnston, an epidemiologist at Dalhousie University in Canada, and more than a dozen researchers concluded that warnings linking meat consumption to heart disease and cancer are not backed by strong scientific evidence.

Several prominent nutrition scientists and health organizations criticized the study’s methods and findings. But Johnston and his colleagues defended the work, saying it relied on the highest standards of scientific evidence, and noted that the large team of investigators reported no conflicts of interest and conducted the review without outside funding.

Johnston also indicated on a disclosure form that he did not have any conflicts of interest to report during the past three years. But as recently as December 2016 he was the senior author on a similar study that tried to discredit international health guidelines advising people to eat less sugar. That study, which also appeared in the Annals of Internal Medicine, was paid for by the International Life Sciences Institute, or ILSI, an industry trade group largely supported by agribusiness, food and pharmaceutical companies and whose members have included McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Cargill, one of the largest beef processors in North America. The industry group, founded by a top Coca-Cola executive four decades ago, has long been accused by the World Health Organization and others of trying to undermine public health recommendations to advance the interests of its corporate members.

In an interview, Johnston said his past relationship with ILSI had no influence on the current research on meat recommendations. He said he did not report his past relationship with ILSI because the disclosure form asked only about potential conflicts within the past three years. Although the ILSI-funded study publication falls within the three-year window, he said the money from ILSI arrived in 2015, and he was not required to report it for the meat study disclosure.

“That money was from 2015 so it was outside of the three-year period for disclosing competing interests,” Johnston said. “I have no relationship with them whatsoever.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientist...133708562.html

Honestly I have been keeping an eye on this for some years and limiting meat and processed foods more recently, even though reports like the above suggest that wasn't necessary, but NOW it seems as if the conventional science was correct and that limiting meat and processed foods was better based on some of the information coming to light about the interest of those leading that science.

So the question becomes not only about this but many other areas of study where we rely on science for prudent and reliable information.

Has science just been reduced to a political tool or buzzword and gimmick?

Or

Does it really not matter the possible motives of those we rely on when it comes to research findings?

Now personally me I am not a throw the baby out with the bath water types, however I am also one that has ever believed scientist like anyone else isn't vulnerable to bias.

However if the science is sound, and the areas for bias very limited or over all eliminated. Then I think information and scientific Data can be divorced from those that present it.

But what do you ultimately think, can science ever be 100% trusted, or are we moving towards a era were not all science is equal?

Personally I have to say method and context has to be just as important.

The biggest problem here is trust, and it should be there are plenty of subjects that rely on science that frankly most including myself really can't understand, so like most people I think many actually do the best they can.

But on some level, not only can it be confusing, but with so many elements that just might not be trustworthy, what do people do.

I am not talking about people who choose to be stupid and do understand, but what about those truly ignorant who are trying to understand. This is also why I think being specific and language is very fucking important.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Read about Vilhjalmur Stefansson and his experience (and fellow explorers) on a nearly all meat diet.

Yeah Atkins Keito, Paleo always been suspicious of fad diets. Been around long enough to see some of that backfire. Especially Atkins.

[Amerissis]

May I add that doing ones own research, does not mean googling and wikipedia... and hardly anyone is in the position to actually do research in the lab or get access to the scientific papers for book research. So people voting that are usually in the same ballpark as anti-vaxxers.

[Doctor Amadeus]

May I add that doing ones own research, does not mean googling and wikipedia... and hardly anyone is in the position to actually do research in the lab or get access to the scientific papers for book research. So people voting that are usually in the same ballpark as anti-vaxxers.

I would say that is true, probably more for complicated issues. Some things not so complicated. I think the problem is trust. I think I read somewhere when it comes to some hot topic issues scientist generally try to steer clear. Which is kind of true like with journalist.

I personally don't think there is a problem with being biased as long as one is honest about it, because I don't think anyone is. However right now I think the biggest problem is that there are no more "Safe Spaces" people feel where they can just get information when they don't understand that hasn't been molested or froth with bias after the facts.

[Cephilia]

Yes and no. I trust scientific research in general, but one study shouldn't lead to any big conclusions. One study is just one study, and you can make them say just about anything you want if you play with the data enough; tobacco industry is a great example of tons of poor quality "studies" that "prove" what we know to be utter bullshit. But enough good quality studies on the same subject and you start forming a consensus that is the best available knowledge we have. It's also altogether different to trust a study and to trust news articles made of that study; often they include huuuge conclusions being drawn from misunderstood studies. My cousin is in veterinary science, and they did astudy on locations of certain alleles in dog genome, and one guy cited them claiming their study means you should inbreed dogs Science is far from perfect, but it's the best thing we have.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Yes and no. I trust scientific research in general, but one study shouldn't lead to any big conclusions. One study is just one study, and you can make them say just about anything you want if you play with the data enough; tobacco industry is a great example of tons of poor quality "studies" that "prove" what we know to be utter bullshit. But enough good quality studies on the same subject and you start forming a consensus that is the best available knowledge we have. It's also altogether different to trust a study and to trust news articles made of that study; often they include huuuge conclusions being drawn from misunderstood studies. My cousin is in veterinary science, and they did astudy on locations of certain alleles in dog genome, and one guy cited them claiming their study means you should inbreed dogs Science is far from perfect, but it's the best thing we have.

Great break down on research 101. I just think as we go the world we have is becoming more complicated on it's own, but when accounting for personal agendas and bias the way we do now more than ever, it's become needlessly

I think the whole dog food debate is a great example, should you feed your cat or dog all meat, raw meat or is it safe for them to go vegan etc etc. Kibble for 10$ or premium bluetastypet mix for 29.99$

[Queen of Hamsters]

I trust science when there's enough findings to support a scientific theory, which is something entirely different from a theory anyone can have.
If I see a news article, I'll dig up the sources and information rather than take the article at face value.

Too many will search for the hypothesis that supports how they feel or what's most convenient to them, and then never do any further research on a subject.

Case in point: Dog food industry, Tobacco companies, rivaling Soda companies etc. They'll all buy "science" to say things that benefit them, whilst actual research should be done free from such influence.

[Themius]

Yeah Atkins Keito, Paleo always been suspicious of fad diets. Been around long enough to see some of that backfire. Especially Atkins.

How did Atkins"back" fire though? It really isn't fad but a life style change.

[Underverse]

There's a body of evidence that isn't particularly damning to meat, and a handful of studies that show health risks. You don't need to look at this one study to see that, and in fact you should NEVER look at one study when it comes to epidemiological questions like this. The studies that get the most publicity are those that cause fear, and these are almost never studies that find no correlation between x and y. Generally the public has been more misled by news outlets that report on this kind of stuff than by any other entity due to selection bias.

[Lane]

It's not about bias it's amount money. You can't take any scientific study at face value. Absolute minimum you need to check for:

1) Who funded the study? You're not guaranteed an easy answer for this either. One of the animal agriculture tactics is to hide behind the face of another company, so you then have to research the company who did the study to find out if they have any ties.

2) Do the scientists who conducted the study have ties to animal agriculture?

3) How was the study conducted? There was one study that set out to prove that animal products do not raise cholesterol and they succeeded. However, in order to achieve those results the animal consumption group decreased their intake while the plant-based group was given copious amounts of coconut oil to increase their intake of saturated fat. The whole thing was manufactured from the ground up to produce a certain outcome.

[Rozz]

Generally you shouldn't trust a one off article that has been funded by an agency to find conclusions to a hypothesis they want to hear.

For a reader science is trustworthy, but people abuse it. Just like statistics, it can be manipulated.
But it is true that not all 'sciences' are equal. That's why we pseudosciences, which have a stronger cultural and spiritual benefit than a relation to the scientific method.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Has science just been reduced to a political tool or buzzword and gimmick?

Simple answer: No

There have always been people that have tried to use "science" to benefit themselves and/or their friends. That's one reason why peer review and repeatable results are necessary. If your science is good...it will hold up to these processes. If not, it will be debunked.

But some assholes trying to profit at the expense of others doesn't have any effect on science as a whole.

[telygroar]

You mean, eating only meat or eating only vegetable lead to some problems ? *shocked*

And if people where to eat both in reasonnable amounts for exemple ? I swear, after climate, soon food is going to be politized too.

[freezion]

Yeah Atkins Keito, Paleo always been suspicious of fad diets. Been around long enough to see some of that backfire. Especially Atkins.

Atkins/Keto is not exactly a fad diet though.
it's a tool used in professional medicine in conjunction with a bunch of conditions and diseases.

It's used for people with epilepsy/seizures and they also reduce symptoms in people with schizophrenia

[Ghostpanther]

I been eating whatever I want all my life. And as much as I want. Weighed 164 pounds when I got out of the Army when I was 20 and today, many decades later, I weigh 162. Just like many years ago, they said eggs and bacon was bad for you. I been eating them whenever I wanted to. And now they are saying meat and eggs are not that bad for us? lol!

[Boricha]

One off articles about a coporate-funded study is just white noise, but I do trust data and science generally.

[Themius]

Atkins/Keto is not exactly a fad diet though.
it's a tool used in professional medicine in conjunction with a bunch of conditions and diseases.

It's used for people with epilepsy/seizures and they also reduce symptoms in people with schizophrenia

It is also how much of the world ate before agricultural expansion

[Vash The Stampede]

Meat is only unhealthy if you prepare it wrong. Look at a potato for example, which if you eat baked is it unhealthy? Now fry the potato into French Fries, will it still be healthy? Turns out a French Fry has as many Carcinogens as any other fried meat. If you broil meat with a lot of water then you're fine. If you steam or boil meat, you're even safer. The water helps prevent the creation of Carcinogens because it boils before it burns the meat. Just like anything else you don't want something to be burnt.

[Flame6]

Most scientific studies are paid for by an org. that has an interest in the result. Science is expensive and usually only someone with skin in the game is going to pay for it.

[Zuben]

Peer-reviewed science can generally be trusted. When you hear stuff from people claiming to be scientists (or Youtubers saying the phrase "according to research"), the first thing to check for is consensus from the larger scientific community.

People tend not to do that.