https://feddit.org/post/13994826/7165181

Everything I downvoted was because I genuinely do not think it’s good. Like meat is not going to cure cancer.

I actually really like eating meat I just try to life a life that gives others room to enjoy this earth too without mutually destroying it.

Please tell me how I am the asshole :)

  • LustyArgonian@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    1 day ago

    The WHO is accurate here, I quoted the relevant parts and the IARC press release confirms the WHO parts I quoted. YOUR statement that the evidence is weak and biased is not supported.

    • jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
      1·
      1 day ago

      The IARC is a body that reviewed associative data and published an opinion, that is the definition of expert opinion.

      So if you want to actually review the studies…

      https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/red-meat#cancer

      In large reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies, researchers have found inconsistent results. One very large meta-analysis found that the absolute effects of red meat on cancer risk are extremely low, with the certainty of evidence being low to very low. While some have shown no association of red meat and cancer risk, others have shown a positive association with gastric, esophageal, breast, and prostate cancer.

      For those that did show an association, the hazard ratios were quite small, in the range of 1.06 to 1.4. In comparison, cigarette smoking has a hazard ratio greater than 20 for being associated with cancer. Therefore, although these observational studies can suggest an association between red meat and cancer, the very low hazard ratios weaken the assertion that red meat causes cancer.

      If you are satisfied with the WHO as your absolutely authority on truth, I respect that, but then there isn’t much point in us talking.

      • LustyArgonian@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        1 day ago

        Lol comparing it to cigarette smoke and then saying it’s totally fine is some manipulative shit. Cigarettes are less carcinogenic than sleeping in Chernobyl overnight, does that make cigarettes safe?

        The WHO is more like the minimum. They only publish established science and are very slow. If they say it is true, then it is super true. However, it could be WORSE than what they say or there could be other issues, because the WHO only announces established things using exact language. If that means red meat gets classified as a Group 2A carcinogen, versus cigarettes and processed meat’s Group 1 designation, then they are correct. If you don’t understand what science is as a field, you can just say that.

        Ps - why arent you posting about how processed meat is bad for carnivore dieters due to the cancer risk? You claim to care about others, yet crickets on that…

        • jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
          1·
          1 day ago

          Ps - why arent you posting about how processed meat is bad for carnivore dieters due to the cancer risk? You claim to care about others, yet crickets on that…

          Because this post is about the moderator decision.

          Processed meat should be avoided, the carnivore diet is about eliminating processed foods, sugars, fructose, etc. So no need for crickets because we never promote processed meat.

          They only publish established science and are very slow. If they say it is true, then it is super true.

          This is just a SUPER version of appeal to authority. Associative epidemiology cannot establish causation.

          • LustyArgonian@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            1 day ago

            The WHO definitively states that processed meat causes cancer.

            The original post doesn’t mention to avoid carcinogenic meats like processed meats at all. It claims meat cures cancer.

            Ps appeal to authority isn’t a fallacy when it is directly related to the subject and supported by evidence in their body of work, which the WHO does both and which I cited directly.

            • jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
              1·
              1 day ago

              Ps appeal to authority isn’t a fallacy when it is directly related to the subject and supported by evidence in their body of work, which the WHO does both and which I cited directly.

              We are just talking in circles, we have different standards of evidence.

              • LustyArgonian@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                1 day ago

                Can you explain what a non-epidemology study would look like for this research? You have actually not explained what you would consider as evidence