Allow me to demonstrate your bias in this situation.

Q: if instead of bacon, what if they had 800 studies showing that, say, carrots cause cancer. Would you be arguing about the stats, or would you stop eating carrots?

I'm pretty sure you'd stop eating carrots. But because you enjoy bacon so much, it's having a impact on your reasoning. That is your bias.


I can prove this further by asking you what it would take to make you give up bacon. And I'm quite sure you would say nothing. Perhaps short of some instant effect, I know you would never stop eating it, no matter strong the evidence. In fact many people don't. They rather go blind and hav their legs amputated from preventable diabetes than give up their instant comfort foods. They are so biased they lose their own limbs, and still refuse to accept the reality.

You also you like to claim that me being vegan makes me biased. But the truth is that the Science made me vegan. And not the other way around. The reduction of animal cruelty is just a bonus.

The cancer arm of the World Health Organization has some serious concerns about some of Americans’ favorite foods. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies processed meat as a carcinogen, something that causes cancer. And it classifies red meat as a probable carcinogen, something that probably causes cancer.

Processed meat includes hot dogs, ham, bacon, sausage, and some deli meats. It refers to meat that has been treated in some way to preserve or flavor it. Processes include salting, curing, fermenting, and smoking. Red meat includes beef, pork, lamb, and goat.

Twenty-two experts from 10 countries reviewed more than 800 studies to reach their conclusions. They found that eating 50 grams of processed meat every day increased the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. That’s the equivalent of about 4 strips of bacon or 1 hot dog. For red meat, there was evidence of increased risk of colorectal, pancreatic, and prostate cancer.

Overall, the lifetime risk of someone developing colon cancer is 5%. To put the numbers into perspective, the increased risk from eating the amount of processed meat in the study would raise average lifetime risk to almost 6%.

----------------------------

Read the study. The average raises almost 1 percent. This was copied straight from https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/hot-dogs-hamburgers-bacon.html.

Also your stats are way off it's not 1% it's 18% for every 50g according to the WHO after reviewing 800 studies.

https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr240_E.pdf


Lovely of you to claim propaganda, but of course, the bias is all yours here - or are you going to tell me you don't enjoy bacon?

Video Title: Slurring guy on the internet defends alcohol consumption, jesus wept lol.

And let's talk about bias for a minute. Nobody is drinking alcohol for the protective effects for the 3 cancers it apparently protects against.Aaron is clearly trying to make himself feel better about his bad habits.

Moderate alcohol is not protective against 3 types of cancers, it's merely associated with it, because people who drink moderately are in a certain demographic, age, class, social/economical, education etc. and the studies that are shown in the nutritionfacts.org video control for these kinds of things.

I'm not sure if you watched the video , but they show research which says that the alcohol industry use the same tactics as big tobacco do (that Aaron is perpetuating) to keep the public confused.

The tactic Aaron is using, is cherry picking a weak study, debunking their shitty method, and then using it to dismiss all other credible evidence. It's effectively a strawman, because he did nothing to address the hundreds of studies with strong evidence.


TL:DR ALCOHOL IS A GROUP 1 CARCINOGEN - IT CAUSES CANCER:

EVERY MEDICAL BODY RECOMMENDS ZERO CONSUMPTION

And what exactly does veganism have to do with alcohol consumption? The vast majority of alcohol is vegan friendly.

Vegans have nothing to gain from decreased alcohol consumption.


----
Also Dr.Greger makes no claims. He simply reads out the research from a world wide scope of researchers, none of which are vegan.

And cherry picking what exactly? He's presented literally 10s of thousands of research papers all from unrelated researchers. And it's not like he's picking out some fringe groups, he's quoting the biggest health organisations in the world.

While it's easy to call him a cherry picker, I challenge anyone to find any credible evidence of cherry picking. I'm yet to hear back from someone over the last 6 years.

And I also challenge you to find an article that isn't funded or tied to the egg/milk/beef/fish industry which claims that eating x animal product is healthy.

Even easier, find an industry funded study which shows the detrimental effects of their own product. You won't, because they are inherently biased - an industry would never publish something that would hurt their bottom line. And no he doesn't ignore or cherry pick around industry funded studies, he exposes their tricks and data manipulation as well. That's not cherry picking, that's proper analysis.

And actually thanks to the freedom of information act, we can see how many studies they hide from us (when they don't like the results), and only publish the ones that suit their revenue centered agenda.

And this is why he's labelled a cherry picker - revenue loss. Broccoli ain't making anyone rich.

Let me put it into perspective:

He did a few video on how those WIFI sensitivity diseases are fake, and the comments are insane - because it's hurting people's income. And this is a pretty niche market, so you can imagine what a billion dollar industry would attempt to do to discredit him. Of course, they never address the research, just him.

That's a great result! But the question is whether food makes it go up or down in the blood.

A single number cannot show us. So while you have a good result it does not prove whether or not foods make blood cholesterol rise or not. We need two measurements (or more) and compare them.

You would need to compare a before and after blood result of you eating a non cholesterol diet for a week at least. That's what these studies show, cholesterol goes down when people stop eating it. And up when people do eat it. The same will happen to you because that happens to everyone tested. Unless you are one of the X-men

You're lucky to have naturally low cholesterol. 14 million people last year were not so lucky.....

I agree that mob mentality and internet anonymity are a toxic combination, and for that alone his point is well made that public shaming is bound to end badly for everyone involved.

however, its hard to take the video seriously when he fails to address at all the failure of police and the justice system. He talks about bringing powerful people to justice as if it were a bad thing, in fact Larry Nassar's name comes up in the video as he makes the point- are you really suggesting that its a bad thing that a guy who raped dozens of girls- while representing your country no less- be exposed and brought to justice for his despicable behavior?

as for palmer, he complied with the law but the law sucked, and he knew what he was doing. he went to the border of a national park and shot a lion that had a GPS collar because it was under study, you'd think a good hunter would spot that. He didnt care because he travelled half way round the world and paid good money to bring himself back a lion skin- should he be immune from criticism just because he didnt break the law? The people who put signs and flowers didnt break the law either by that standard, only the ones who vandalized his property. maybe its just a matter of the justice system actually working so that mob justice is unnecessary??

Lol. Good point.....dirty hippies. ;-)

Um....what? Vegans should want to avoid them almost as much as the hunter's helper and slaughterhouse sucker brand lozenges, not flock to the brand marketed at meat harvesters.

Um...really? You think non vegans fear a vegan culinary takeover or something enough to falsify studies/polls? That's hilarious.
As to the 7% number, even vegan organizations in Britain disagree, as does Wiki....
According to a 2018 survey by Comparethemarket.com, the number of people who identify as vegans in the United Kingdom has risen to over 3.5 million, which is approximately seven percent of the population, and environmental concerns were a major factor in this development.[140] However, doubt was cast on this inflated figure by the UK-based Vegan Society, who perform their own regular survey: the Vegan Society themselves found in 2018 that there were 600,000 vegans in Great Britain (1.16%), which is a dramatic increase on previous figures.[141][142]
United States: Estimates of vegans in the U.S. vary from 2% (Gallup, 2012)[143] to 0.5% (Faunalytics, 2014). According to the latter, 70% of those who adopted a vegan diet abandoned it.

Clearly the statistics are stacked because we all know real vegans don't have jobs

I'd take the Fisherman's Friend study with a grain of salt :-) For starters it's going to be a biased sample, and for all we know it just means sick vegans prefer to buy Fisherman's Friend Lozengers than non-vegans.

They are going really hard with fear mongering in the UK, because veganism is taking hold - 7% of the population is now vegan :-)

I didn't have to wait long for other evidence....a major study recently released in the UK showed vegans took >twice as many sick days as non vegans and needed to see a doctor >three times as often.
Sure doesn't sound healthy to me.

Maasai do not have heart disease or cholesterol problems attributed to red meat even though they eat almost exclusively cattle. Leading causes of death include pneumonia and diarrhoea, followed by other diseases not diet related issues.

Yes, people who cut out vegetables like Inuit have issues just like those who cut meat without going to extremes to replace what they're lacking, and most don't. You must be joking using them as an example of fish inclusive diets.
People with diets high in fish like Okinawans (1/2 an American sized serving per day isn't little to me, that's every other day having a full fish meal) that include other meat in moderation and is vegetable based are the healthiest in studies, as I indicated.

No sir....we KNOW vegans are lying.
What I can't understand is why.
There's plenty of evidence that plant based (not vegetarian or vegan) diets are the healthiest choice.
There's plenty of evidence that vegan diets are almost always lacking in nutrition....they can be healthy but it's a full time and expensive proposition.
You are wrong, studies on cultures that eat large amounts of fish show it's good, and most weren't funded by the fishing industries. The Massai are pretty healthy too, and they eat and drink beef, blood, and milk almost exclusively. They have been studied extensively. You seem to always feel compelled to exaggerate enough to be wrong.

You guys think that vegans are lying?

It's a shame you do not scrutinize the sellers of these products, as much as you do with vegans - Where is the *they lied to us* comments from the meat eaters about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83q9oamxmvQ

Clearly blatant number fudging, but people are happy to overlook it because vegans are the annoying ones right?

Every single study that shows animal products are good, or neutral are funded by the people that sell them. I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO FIND A STUDY THAT SHOWS ADDING ANY ANIMAL PRODUCT TO A DIET MAKES IT HEALTHIER - WHICH ISN'T TIED/LINKED TO THE INDUSTRY. In 5 years I'm yet to find one, and almost all of them have very audacious number fudging and statistic manipulation like the above egg study.

Now compare that to the 400 studies that came out last year showing meat has detrimental effects for us...... not coming from vegans. (and this happens each and every year, since 1970).



(There are also plenty of doctors who aren't vegans (like John McDougall, Caldwell Esselstyn, Dean Ornish) who all make very strong points about avoiding animal products.) These guys still eat meat on special occasions, so clearly not vegan.

My favorite is the study that claimed definitive proof it was cell phone signals causing CCD.

Any sources for these claims of single identified cause? And I don't mean youtube videos of some guy saying that it has been solved. Oh, and preferably not studies funded by agribusiness with vested interest either.

I ask because over the years there have been plenty of "revelations" claiming to have solved the mystery for good that never quite panned out, so, you know, I am a little skeptical.