cheryl
Administrator
Staff member
Eat A Vegetarian Diet If It Suits You, It Won't Make You Healthier - Only Fewer Calories Will - Science 2.0
People often adopt vegetarian or even vegan diets because they are told it will make them healthier, but the same epidemiological correlation that tried to link butter with heart disease claimed trans fats would prevent it, and now statistical links claim just the opposite.
Without a plausible biological mechanism for how meat or trans fats might impact health, such claims always remain "exploratory" but in a 24-hour news cycle a big name like Harvard School of Public Health or International Agency for Research on Cancer will get media attention, and most covering science journalism don't know the difference between correlation and causation. IARC, for its part, even tries to make its findings seem more authoritative than they are and use causal verbiage in their media kits while their actual monagraphs note they can't show causation.
But 'meat is bad for you' is now big business. So big that if studies debunk it, "True Health Initiative" and epidemiologists like Walter Willett and Frank Hu, who've made their careers undermining a normal diet, will call any scientist who undermines them shills for Big Meat; the kind of ethically suspect technique that is unfortunately common among activist academics. True Health Initiative will even try to pressure journals into censorship or lobby law enforcement to investigate critics. Their dozens of corporate sponsors won't continue to fund them if they don't.
People often adopt vegetarian or even vegan diets because they are told it will make them healthier, but the same epidemiological correlation that tried to link butter with heart disease claimed trans fats would prevent it, and now statistical links claim just the opposite.
Without a plausible biological mechanism for how meat or trans fats might impact health, such claims always remain "exploratory" but in a 24-hour news cycle a big name like Harvard School of Public Health or International Agency for Research on Cancer will get media attention, and most covering science journalism don't know the difference between correlation and causation. IARC, for its part, even tries to make its findings seem more authoritative than they are and use causal verbiage in their media kits while their actual monagraphs note they can't show causation.
But 'meat is bad for you' is now big business. So big that if studies debunk it, "True Health Initiative" and epidemiologists like Walter Willett and Frank Hu, who've made their careers undermining a normal diet, will call any scientist who undermines them shills for Big Meat; the kind of ethically suspect technique that is unfortunately common among activist academics. True Health Initiative will even try to pressure journals into censorship or lobby law enforcement to investigate critics. Their dozens of corporate sponsors won't continue to fund them if they don't.
