aka, why to ignore headlines that have question marks in them. Poor journalism enables these trolls imo.

9037 studies demonstrate that red meat causes cancer. I'm well aware that you can manipulate statistics, which is why there is an organisation called the World Cancer Research Fund. They've sifted through 500,000 studies and currently have identified 9037 legitimate studies. wcrf.org/int/research-we-fund/cancer-prevention-recommendations/animal-foods

You might not like vegans or Dr. Greger, but you cannot argue against over 9000 peer reviewed, and medical journal published studies, that are unrelated, done by non-vegans, and then filtered through by non-vegan scientists to assess the quality of the results.

EDIT: They say that more than 300g of red meat a week puts you in serious danger of developing cancer - that quite clearly means it is at least as dangerous as smoking.

Pseudoscience? You cannot get more scientific than reading from the actual study - which is what this video is. The visuals are the actual text from the study, which is published in an actual medical journal, by non-vegan scientists. In the corner of the video it even lists which article it is so you can go and read it for yourself.

Every single video on nutritionfacts.org is in this format, there is nothing on the site that is not supported by quality science, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Thanks StukaFox, you managed to produce no peer reviewed papers but have claimed some sort of research victory because you got some answers from Google. Nice. I'd hire you as a researcher for sure.

So I mentioned the Australian and New Zealand legislation. Lets see if there is a peer reviewed paper that examines this.

McPhedran, Samara; Baker, Jeanine (2011). "Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A descriptive study of incidence". Justice Policy Journal.

New Zealand didn't enact Australia's draconian laws. You can buy an AR15 there with high capacity magazines. They also haven't had a mass shooting in 20 years. The peer reviewed paper examines this and comes to the conclusion I stated above.

I see you have some ABS data. Nice. I use the ABS all the time.

Oh wait. You took only the last two years of data for a data set that spans over 40 years. Bad form mate. Lets see if the rate of firearms related homicide was reducing at a similar rate before the legislation changes using a much larger time period.

Lucky for me someone else already did this to make my day easier. They used Australian Institute of Criminology (the official government source) data over a 30 year period. It shows the rate did not change with the legislation change in 1997.

Nice examination of the issue on Quora

Are there peer reviewed papers which come to the same conclusion? Yes.

Lee, Wang-Sheng; Suardi, Sandy (2010). "The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths". Contemporary Economic Policy. 28 (1): 65–79

Jeanine Baker, Samara McPhedran; Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?, The British Journal of Criminology, Volume 47, Issue 3, 1 May 2007, Pages 455–469

Chicago? I wasn't going to mention it. I'm not American. I am Australian.

Conclusion: go wipe the egg off of your face.

Edit: forgot to answer your question.

"What conclusions can we draw from this? "

We can conclude that for a short period of time the homicide by firearm rate went up. Just as it goes up and down for any short period of time in most countries. This does not negate the TREND, which in the USA has been downward year on year for the last 25 years. The rate of firearm ownership has increased over the same 25 year period.

Yeah, along with stories about:
- how climate change is a hoax
- why sexual harassment laws mean the end of romance
- how immigrants are stealing your job
- how immigrants are lazy bastards who don't work and take the dole (I presume these are Schrodinger's immigrants?)
- how the youth of today just need a good war to sort them out

First Today Tonight, now the Daily Mail?

Fucking hell, the standards for journalism are falling through the floor.

@newtboy, you do realise you're promoting the Aussie equivalent of Sean Hannity here, right?

Today Tonight is a fucking joke, and I wouldn't insult the concept of journalism by comparing it what to what they do.

I haven't looked into this particular issue, but I wouldn't be surprised to find it's typical right-wing scaremongering.

"Let me just get this straight, your saying that we should organize our society along the lines of the lobster"

NOPE, NOPE, I can't do it anymore... I stuck it out until 27:13 but that moronic question puts it over the top.

So let me get this straight Mrs. Interviewer, you have no concept of the scientific method and just want to push your ideals and emotions on this guy (write or wrong that he may be)?

I should have just watched the fireplace channel for half an hour... I certainly would have come out smarter after this show of abysmal "journalism".

*quality journalism that had instant effect, stopping Marino from becoming Drug Czar.
*promote

Minimata disease was largely exposed by photographer W. Eugene Smith. The Chisso Corporation did not like being made famous for their business practice. Several employees attacked Smith in 1972. Smith survived, but never really recovered. He left Japan in 1974 to teach journalism at the University of Arizona. He died a in 1978, aged 59.

His most famous image of the environmental disaster was Tomoko Uemura in Her Bath.

You can see the rest of his images of Minimata at Magnum Photos.

The first time it was presented it was in the American Statistician a quarterly peer-reviewed scientific journal covering statistics. The other two* they don't say where they were published. She published it in what...Parade Magazine. Is there really any surprise the one read by a large portion of the general public got push back opposed to the other, A PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL.

(edit) *Journal of Economics Perspectives and Bridge Today

Was she getting some push back solely because she was a women? It's possible, but i can't see it based on this video or the linked article. Not that i wouldn't be surprised though. There are always some in the population with biases against different groups of people. Women being one of them.

I think you're right about people moving around less in general, and it no doubt has played a part.

But there are also studies which show that even if calories in/out remains the same between all diets, the diet which is less processed food and lower fat food does better.

E.g. https://www.nature.com/nutd/journal/v7/n3/pdf/nutd20173a.pdf

*ban self link http://rosylazi.deviantart.com/journal/IT-S-THE-END-OF-THE-WORLD-AS-WE-KNOW-IT-686967119

*ban self link http://ralphad.deviantart.com/journal/12017Toyota-686370705

*ban self link/spam http://andrywilz.deviantart.com/journal/LumNkey-Worlds-First-Bluetooth-LED-686595870

*ban self link http://markryn.deviantart.com/journal/Best-Gaming-Music-Mix-2017-685614588