Nina Teicholz...Science and Politics of Red Meat in 2021
 

https://youtu.be/GNRo-IbQ1Jo


I'm always impressed at the level of digging into the literature that this woman goes. Here is her honest assessment of red meat in the now.......

Ooooh..thank you. Zoe Harcombe does not post podcasts often, but she also interviewed Nina this week.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podca...i=1000518308036

https://www.zoeharcombe.com/

I love Nina! Have her book! She really knows her stuff.

We all know how money influences science. We need to work on that in many ways, as the last year has shown.

This is a great video - easy to follow. Nina connects the dots really nicely. I like how she's exposed those guys without resorting to their ad-hominem tactics.

Interesting that those 'experts' throwing the smears campaigns against their opponents for even the tiniest appearance of conflict of interest are themselves nose deep in bias, cherry picking science & conflicts of interest. We face scary times ahead. Hopefully the healing effect of proper nutrition will win the day.

The smear campaigns are one of the surest signs that they have no data to back up their position. People with solid data generally welcome critics because it gives them one more opportunity to show how the data backs up their position, while people that don't have any such data feel threatened and have to resort to trying to shout down any and all questioners.

These people are NOT scientists and their tactics should be decried loudly by anyone that wants to consider themselves a real scientist.

Thanks for the link, MsA. Watching it now. The "diet wars" have confused so many that it always seems like open season whenever something new becomes popular. The plant-based advocates and other strict dietary followers (it's not limited to plant or vegan followers) look upon any lifestyle approach as a threat if it doesn't support their ways of thinking, so the attacks begin. The vitriol recently has become more venomous. My guess is that's the only way to discredit claims, as the hateful responses are never based on studies, only emotions. Unfortunately, the world seems to be increasingly operating this way. In the past, we could have debates and dialogs presenting different ideas, now it seems everything that is not in agreement is a threat that must be attacked with unsubstantiated venom and drama. Those strident voices hiding behind incomplete science and yet reluctant to shine a light on it are the biggest challenge.

I agree that it SEEMS like it is getting worse -- and I certainly believe that to be the case -- but I can't help but wonder if it actually IS worse now than before. If you look back through the history of science (in all fields, including physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, geology, you name it) there is no shortage of these kinds of reactions. In the end, the science usually wins out and the behaviors of the participants (from all sides) are then forgotten. So I suspect that a good portion of why we think it is worse now than ever is because we tend to only be aware of the behaviors of current controversies. Having said that and being aware of that, I still have this gut feeling that it IS worse now than it used to be -- but I can't really support that believe with evidence.

We've always had debate. The difference today is that disagreement with many and disagreement with previously popular thinking is now taken as a personal insult where the disagreeing party is viewed as a threat. This shuts off a lot of valuable communication, as science is never static or fixed, it is always evolving with new thinking and new discoveries. If we look at history, we certainly did have periods where people who had different views were persecuted, prosecuted, even killed. I was hoping those times were left behind through civil discourse and becoming aware of new things by exchanging views and ideas. We seem to be regressing and that's troubling.

Ancel Keys vs John Yudkin was pretty nasty back in the day:

https://www.mtpr.org/post/sugar-vs-...ked%20by%20Keys.

Keys excoriated Yudkin with Keys' claims based on no factual evidence. Matter of fact, his "evidence" was successfully manipulated. Bias abounds and the one thing necessary to combat that is open discourse and healthy skepticism.

The loudest voice is not necessarily the correct one.

A little off topic..... The one time I was on a jury , the loudest guy shouted down every other jurist in the room..... until everyone voted with him.

We cannot let the shouters become the only voice.

Imo people can try different diets to see what works for that individual. Vegan, vegetarian, low carb, carnivore, etc etc. We are all searching for better health. Period.

My concern for some time is the concentration of chemicals in meats. Manmade chemicals. Chemicals banned in Europe but not here.

As for domestic meat animals, finding "clean" meat is the next battle now that Nina has presented an updated picture of red meat.

Speaking of war: this seems to be a shot across the bow.



This is good/bad because it actually admits some good things about red meat. But these are simply inaccurate:



MAY? How weasely is that? It's high Omega-6 seed oils which cause inflammation.



The usual cholesterol nonsense.



Oh, really? If you click on the link of the study referenced in this paragraph, you get this slippery reporting:



The unreliable FOOD diary study strikes again! And can you read those two paragraphs and make any sense of them? Processed meat comes with bread, FULL STOP.

It's all designed to confuse people, make them give up on trying to figure it out, and get the NOOM app.

I have no doubt that many of the people who are in the high red-meat category get their red meat from eating fast food. The junk that gets eating along with the meat is the unhealthy stuff but the meat gets blamed.

ANOTHER excellent point. I now mentally subtract the non-food-value items when I look at a typical fast food meal. It's shocking how much we pay for a palmful of actual food.