A new study found that completely eliminating meat from one’s diet may significantly reduce the risk of developing cancer, with figures reaching up to 45% less risk for some cancers compared to those…
The direct follow-up to that reads: “Validation of the dietary habits was primarily by comparison with 6 24-h dietary recalls administered by telephone in a representative validation subgroup (1100 participants).”
Yup! But they were validating the globally administered FFQ, so that doesn’t change the rigor of the data, just the confidence in the FFQ.
I know neither you nor I are qualified to interpret primary medical literature; we should leave that to the experts, and I’m not going to fan the flames of this by doing something I’m not qualified to do. But I can objectively point out that your last bullet point is highly selective.
I am trained in the maths, so I can speak to the weakness of the signal here.
Did you happen to look at my post on standards of evidence? I welcome feedback, and I know you do care about data and science even if we disagree on diets, so I would appreciate your thoughts. https://discuss.online/post/25820268
Jet, I can’t honestly take you seriously when you follow a carnivore diet. I’m sorry. It’s like someone who believes in autistic enterocolitis trying to debunk a study about vaccine safety. That’s the heart of the matter: your interpretation of scientific literature is so asinine and filled with disinformation that I honestly believe you believe this but also have to acknowledge that talking with someone on a carnivore diet about nutrition science is pigeon chess. “It’s not me who’s wrong! It’s the entirety of medical academia and all of the health institutes who are wrong!”
your interpretation of scientific literature is so asinine and filled with disinformation that I honestly believe you believe this but also have to acknowledge that talking with someone on a carnivore diet about nutrition science is pigeon chess.
Shouldn’t our divergent views be manifest in our standards of evidence? We might be stuck in a loop of pre-selecting a conclusion before examining the data, hence our inability to be empathetic to the others conclusions.
I don’t need you to agree with me, but if you can speak to my consistency of evidentiary standards we could have a productive discussion.
“It’s not me who’s wrong! It’s the entirety of medical academia and all of the health institutes who are wrong!”
Jet, linking me to the SMHP this would be like me linking you to the PCRM in a reality where the broader scientific community supports an animal-based diet. “Not all doctors believe that! Check out the PCRM!” in a world where an exclusive carnivore diet reduces the rates of major chronic diseases by double digits, and you’d tell me I’m cherry-picking like the far-right cherrypicks climate scientists who don’t believe in man-made climate change.
Closing the loop on soliciting feedback on my evidentiary standards process: You can’t look at it because you know you disagree with my conclusions. That seems rather circular
A document which answers many of the critiques you brought up in your post edits above (wrt SAD).
I’m simply providing counter evidence to the blanket statement that “the entirety of medical academia and all of the health institutions that are wrong”
I’m reading what you wrote, and responding to it as written, I’m taking you seriously, which I hope you do for me as well.
you’d tell me I’m cherry-picking like the far-right cherrypicks climate scientists who don’t believe in man-made climate change
Okay, to be fair, that’s what I’m hoping you would say to me in that reality. Even with animal ethics at stake in that alternate reality, I would hope you’d call me out. When I say the entire biology community believes in evolution, the entire climatology community believes in man-made climate change, and the entire medical community believes vaccines do not cause autism, that isn’t a literal mathematical universal qualification; it’s saying that the support is so overwhelming that any dissent is absolutely negligible and not even worth considering.
Yup! But they were validating the globally administered FFQ, so that doesn’t change the rigor of the data, just the confidence in the FFQ.
I am trained in the maths, so I can speak to the weakness of the signal here.
Did you happen to look at my post on standards of evidence? I welcome feedback, and I know you do care about data and science even if we disagree on diets, so I would appreciate your thoughts. https://discuss.online/post/25820268
Jet, I can’t honestly take you seriously when you follow a carnivore diet. I’m sorry. It’s like someone who believes in autistic enterocolitis trying to debunk a study about vaccine safety. That’s the heart of the matter: your interpretation of scientific literature is so asinine and filled with disinformation that I honestly believe you believe this but also have to acknowledge that talking with someone on a carnivore diet about nutrition science is pigeon chess. “It’s not me who’s wrong! It’s the entirety of medical academia and all of the health institutes who are wrong!”
Shouldn’t our divergent views be manifest in our standards of evidence? We might be stuck in a loop of pre-selecting a conclusion before examining the data, hence our inability to be empathetic to the others conclusions.
I don’t need you to agree with me, but if you can speak to my consistency of evidentiary standards we could have a productive discussion.
Not the entirety! https://thesmhp.org/
Jet, linking me to the SMHP this would be like me linking you to the PCRM in a reality where the broader scientific community supports an animal-based diet. “Not all doctors believe that! Check out the PCRM!” in a world where an exclusive carnivore diet reduces the rates of major chronic diseases by double digits, and you’d tell me I’m cherry-picking like the far-right cherrypicks climate scientists who don’t believe in man-made climate change.
Closing the loop on soliciting feedback on my evidentiary standards process: You can’t look at it because you know you disagree with my conclusions. That seems rather circular
A document which answers many of the critiques you brought up in your post edits above (wrt SAD).
I’m simply providing counter evidence to the blanket statement that “the entirety of medical academia and all of the health institutions that are wrong”
I’m reading what you wrote, and responding to it as written, I’m taking you seriously, which I hope you do for me as well.
Now your just putting words in my mouth.
Okay, to be fair, that’s what I’m hoping you would say to me in that reality. Even with animal ethics at stake in that alternate reality, I would hope you’d call me out. When I say the entire biology community believes in evolution, the entire climatology community believes in man-made climate change, and the entire medical community believes vaccines do not cause autism, that isn’t a literal mathematical universal qualification; it’s saying that the support is so overwhelming that any dissent is absolutely negligible and not even worth considering.
If that is your worldview on things you believe no wonder you always end up attacking me and my character.