Vegans Charged With Murder for Allegedly Starving Toddler on Raw Food Diet

[CWayne]

Red and Processed Meat Guideline Recommendations | Annals of Internal Medicine | American College of Physicians

This was posted on an earlier thread, and this is an example of what I was talking about in my previous post; conflicts of interest, and studies that go against the totality of the science, for decades, in an attempt to promote meat.

Some quotes from a Washington Post article…

“Undisclosed in the study was that NutriRECS, a consortium of about 20 researchers, has also formed a partnership with an arm of Texas A&M University partially funded by the beef industry.”

AND it turns out the lead author has a track record of not disclosing conflicts of interest:

“Last week, the New York Times published a story that revealed Johnston had not disclosed a conflict of interest on a similar study in 2016 in the Annals of Internal Medicine that aimed to debunk sugar consumption’s association with health risks. The study had been paid for by the International Life Sciences Institute, which has been financially supported by companies such as McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Cargill.”

According to those who have already debunked the study, several of the authors are proponents of the “Paleo” diet and eaters of red and processed meat, so it seems clear to me that it was biased from the start.

The totality of our current advice on diet and nutrition is profit-driven and the proof of how bad it is can be seen in study after study.

When you have a cause of insulin resistance and the totality of the science says to continue to eat the cause, you have to question their motives along with their science.

I was talking about the science, not general diet advice. The science has been consistent for a long time in regard to red and processed meat. Then you get a new "study" that goes against the totality of the science saying "hey wait a minute, keep eating meat, we took a second look and it's good for you!" Those types of studies are almost always industry funded, and as I pointed out in my previous post, the lead author of that particular one has a history of not disclosing blatant conflicts of interests.

As for Keto and low-carb, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I completely reject the whole idea behind keto, and the science backs up that it is dangerous in the long run. There are GOOD carbs that are unfortunately getting slandered by those pushing a high meat / low-carb diet. Don't even get me started, lol.

Btw, if you haven't already, please watch the documentary "The Game Changers." It's on Netflix and everywhere. It goes over some of the things we've been talking about, and more.

That is just a flat out lie. The science has never been based in anything remotely close to science.

Again, I doubt you'll watch it, but here is the history of the lie about fat and its correlation to heart disease.

Yeah, I've heard it before. Time and time again it has been shown that the "science" which supposedly backs what that guy is promoting is almost always industry funded, or pushed by people who are selling a book or certain products because those types of diets are very trendy right now.

You are dismissing not just one or two studies, but tons of different studies from all over the world, for decades. In other words, you are dismissing an overwhelming amount of evidence, in order to believe those who are promoting currently trendy diets, like paleo or keto (and now, even the "carnivore" diet.) As I said before, people LOVE to hear good news about bad habits. Who doesn't want to hear "Eat more bacon!" ? In addition to that, I think the popularity of those diets is, in part, a response to the growing move toward plantbased eating and veganism. There is a war going on, as people simply hate the idea of ever giving up the "foods" they have loved for so long.

Don't get me wrong. I agree with you that too much sugar is bad, and of course I think we ALL agree that highly processed foods are bad, as well as junk food. And of course we need fats in out diet! But that doesn't mean using bacon grease (I'm using hyperbole here, but it's basically what that crowd pushes) to "fuel" our body, which to me is beyond idiotic, and I would have said the same thing even in my meat-eating, pre-vegan days. HEALTHY fats are necessary, of course, but our bodies were not designed to run on fat as our primary fuel, for a long period of time. That is a scam, which btw has caused several people who promote that scam to die early deaths.

So, you have a closed mind.

Got it.

One more. This one brings a number (not all of them) actors into light.



BTW, this was from 2009! There is no reason people who are concerned about their health and/or concerned about the costs of healthcare should be ignorant of this information.

 

[buttercup]

This was posted on an earlier thread, and this is an example of what I was talking about in my previous post; conflicts of interest, and studies that go against the totality of the science, for decades, in an attempt to promote meat.

Some quotes from a Washington Post article…

“Undisclosed in the study was that NutriRECS, a consortium of about 20 researchers, has also formed a partnership with an arm of Texas A&M University partially funded by the beef industry.”

AND it turns out the lead author has a track record of not disclosing conflicts of interest:

“Last week, the New York Times published a story that revealed Johnston had not disclosed a conflict of interest on a similar study in 2016 in the Annals of Internal Medicine that aimed to debunk sugar consumption’s association with health risks. The study had been paid for by the International Life Sciences Institute, which has been financially supported by companies such as McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Cargill.”

According to those who have already debunked the study, several of the authors are proponents of the “Paleo” diet and eaters of red and processed meat, so it seems clear to me that it was biased from the start.

The totality of our current advice on diet and nutrition is profit-driven and the proof of how bad it is can be seen in study after study.

When you have a cause of insulin resistance and the totality of the science says to continue to eat the cause, you have to question their motives along with their science.

I was talking about the science, not general diet advice. The science has been consistent for a long time in regard to red and processed meat. Then you get a new "study" that goes against the totality of the science saying "hey wait a minute, keep eating meat, we took a second look and it's good for you!" Those types of studies are almost always industry funded, and as I pointed out in my previous post, the lead author of that particular one has a history of not disclosing blatant conflicts of interests.

As for Keto and low-carb, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I completely reject the whole idea behind keto, and the science backs up that it is dangerous in the long run. There are GOOD carbs that are unfortunately getting slandered by those pushing a high meat / low-carb diet. Don't even get me started, lol.

Btw, if you haven't already, please watch the documentary "The Game Changers." It's on Netflix and everywhere. It goes over some of the things we've been talking about, and more.

That is just a flat out lie. The science has never been based in anything remotely close to science.

Again, I doubt you'll watch it, but here is the history of the lie about fat and its correlation to heart disease.

Yeah, I've heard it before. Time and time again it has been shown that the "science" which supposedly backs what that guy is promoting is almost always industry funded, or pushed by people who are selling a book or certain products because those types of diets are very trendy right now.

You are dismissing not just one or two studies, but tons of different studies from all over the world, for decades. In other words, you are dismissing an overwhelming amount of evidence, in order to believe those who are promoting currently trendy diets, like paleo or keto (and now, even the "carnivore" diet.) As I said before, people LOVE to hear good news about bad habits. Who doesn't want to hear "Eat more bacon!" ? In addition to that, I think the popularity of those diets is, in part, a response to the growing move toward plantbased eating and veganism. There is a war going on, as people simply hate the idea of ever giving up the "foods" they have loved for so long.

Don't get me wrong. I agree with you that too much sugar is bad, and of course I think we ALL agree that highly processed foods are bad, as well as junk food. And of course we need fats in out diet! But that doesn't mean using bacon grease (I'm using hyperbole here, but it's basically what that crowd pushes) to "fuel" our body, which to me is beyond idiotic, and I would have said the same thing even in my meat-eating, pre-vegan days. HEALTHY fats are necessary, of course, but our bodies were not designed to run on fat as our primary fuel, for a long period of time. That is a scam, which btw has caused several people who promote that scam to die early deaths.

So, you have a closed mind.

Got it.

One more. This one brings a number (not all of them) actors into light.



BTW, this was from 2009! There is no reason people who are concerned about their health and/or concerned about the costs of healthcare should be ignorant of this information.

No, I do not have a closed mind at all. If I had a closed mind I would never have gone vegan, because I was a HUGE meat lover, and I even stated several times that I could never ever go vegan or vegetarian.

You're going to hate me for this, but I just did some research, and as to be expected, the man in the video (Peter Attia) was funded by a foundation that has substantial ties to animal agriculture industry lobbying. Also, I read some things about his former organization, NuSI, that are ethically questionable, like accepting a 700K salary one year (and reportedly, a 4 year total of $1.7 million) in what was supposed to be a non-profit org.

Whether he is sincere and honest or not, it looks pretty clear that he was being used, by people with ties to animal ag, whose MO is to sow seeds of doubt in the minds of the public, when it comes to diet and nutrition. That's what they do. Because that confusion leads people to just throw their hands in the air and say, "I don't know who to believe so I'll just eat what I want."