Another day, another settled scientific consensus debunked — this one about the dangers of red meat.
Surprise, surprise, turns out red meat is not so dangerous after all.
But-but-but Settled scientific consensus!
Wake up, y’all — it’s all bullshit.
Remember how salt and fat and coffee were poison … and now aren’t?
Anyway, before we get to my favorite part, here’s the news from the far-left New York Times:
[O]n Monday, in a remarkable turnabout, an international collaboration of researchers produced a series of analyses concluding that the advice, a bedrock of almost all dietary guidelines, is not backed by good scientific evidence.
If there are health benefits from eating less beef and pork, they are small, the researchers concluded. Indeed, the advantages are so faint that they can be discerned only when looking at large populations, the scientists said, and are not sufficient to tell individuals to change their meat-eating habits.
Raise your hand if you are surprised by this…
My approach to everything — except TV and coffee and Coca Cola and Blu-rays — has always been moderation.
Here is what I think is the key to this latest finding (emphasis mine):
The new reports are based on three years of work by a group of 14 researchers in seven countries, along with three community representatives, directed by Dr. Johnston. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest and did the studies without outside funding.
In three reviews, the group looked at studies asking whether eating red meat or processed meats affected the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer.
To assess deaths from any cause, the group reviewed 61 articles reporting on 55 populations, with more than 4 million participants. The researchers also looked at randomized trials linking red meat to cancer and heart disease (there are very few), as well as 73 articles that examined links between red meat and cancer incidence and mortality.
In each study, the scientists concluded that the links between eating red meat and disease and death were small, and the quality of the evidence was low to very low.
“Without outside funding.”
Let me repeat that… “Without outside funding.”
See what happens to scientists when the funding doesn’t come from an interested party, from someone with skin in the game…
But I did promise I would get to my favorite part, and here it is… A look at just how unscientific the scientific community is — and once again the emphasis is mine:
Some called for the journal’s editors to delay publication altogether. In a statement, scientists at Harvard warned that the conclusions “harm the credibility of nutrition science and erode public trust in scientific research.”
Yes, by all means, let’s withhold information from a scientific study out of the fear this science will erode public trust in science because withholding science to protect science will increase our trust in science because hiding science is The New Science.
Look at that! So-called scientists are openly calling for a cover up!
I am totally fine with scientists disputing this new red meat study, arguing against it, declaring it flawed, calling for more studies. That kind of debate and challenge is exactly what you want in a community of scientists. But to ask for the report to be blacklisted tells you everything you need to know about the state of our so-called scientific community.
Which brings me to Global Cooling Global Warming Climate Change…
If the so-called scientific community is willing to blacklist a report that says it’s okay to enjoy a good-old American cheeseburger now and again, imagine the efforts involved to cover up anything that disproves the religion of Climate Change.
These idiots are already 0-41 with their climate doomsday predictions, they already got salt, red meat, fat, and coffee wrong, but let’s completely destroy the most successful economic system in history and give up all our freedoms because the global temperature might have increased by one degree.