Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Is "associative studies and relative risk" another way of saying, "correlation can't establish causation"? Does that mean we actually don't know if smoking is bad for us? Sorry, but if you're going to read from the same playbooks as idiots like Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholz then you're not going to have any credibility. Nutritional epidemiology is rock solid and the cornerstone of sound nutritional science. If your views depend on undermining an entire field of science, you're already cut from the same cloth as climate deniers.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JJeoYQ6FaAw
I have nothing but respect for them, but they are journalists and not conducting science themselves.
But yes, I will say epidemiology should only be considered hypothesis generating, not demonstrating causation. The best way to tell if a epidemiology paper is clinically useful is if they express their results in absolute risk (they almost never do)
However, this is a field of science, the philosophy and influencers don't matter, all that matters is health outcomes. If people are getting the outcomes they want then I'm happy for them.
There is research that also points to meat being beneficial - so I absolutely don't think its reasonable to close the book on nutrition as solved, and meat is the enemy.
Ahh, I see you are now downvoting my comments! OK, Message received
Here is my own youtube video on nutritional epidemiology! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWgH-VaqMjQ - 7 Flaws in Nutrition Epidemiology
Called it. Get your pseudoscience crackpot cheesehands diet nonsense out of here.
Why are these published studies pseudoscience?
Anybody can cherry pick isolated studies to support any argument they want. I'm not giving you the time of day on this because it never ends. That's the point. It's the same playbook as the tobacco industry, same as the oil companies. Corporate-backed pseudoscience that appears just about legitimate-enough to create distractions and confusions.
You already admitted to being anti-epidemiology and "respecting" people like Taubes, as well as name-dropping the carnivore diet. That's all I need to know, to know that you're full of nonsense.
I read papers, I would like to know the criteria for pseudoscience so I can identify it in a paper.
So far it appears if a paper does fit your preconceived bias it's pseudoscience
It is possible for two different people to read the literature and come to different conclusions, that's normal in science, the next step is to apply the theory and see if you get the result you predict.