*science

Adding video to channels (Science) - requested by notarobot.

I would take everything said in this video with a truckload of salt.

NutritionFacts.org are a pseudo-scientific organisation that push the idea that cancer can be cured with a vegan diet.

agree, but here the explanation of lead time bias and overdiagnosis bias is reasonably good.
it's important to note that the studies were regrading primary care physicians who should know about screening and bias, but they are not cancer specialist (oncologist).
The male coming to see doctor asking for a PSA test because a celebrity said they should has presented a problem as doctors are afraid of litigation despite poor evidence for random PSA being a useful screening test. I believe the use of PSA as part of a 'medical' is far more common in the USA than Uk.

Yep...created and run by the guy who erroneously claimed the W.H.O. produced a study proving eating red meat is as cancer causing and dangerous as heavy cigarette smoking (they didn't say any such thing).

Except it ignored that most early screening does lead to better results because early treatment always works better than later treatment (except in rare cases where no treatment is effective).

True, the statistics can be misleading, but you can use statistics to prove anything....forfty percent of all people know that.;-)

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.

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.

"You cannot get more scientific than reading from the actual study".

Actually, you can.

For a start, that's an article, not a study. http://www.bmj.com/bmj/section-pdf/187734?path=/bmj/346/7893/Observations.full.pdf

Second, even when something IS a study, if you cherry pick parts of it you can easily mislead people.

Now, I don't really have a problem with the facts outlined in this video, other than that I know Greger is attempting to use them to convince people NOT to get proper treatment of cancer.

No he read from the actual studies in the video, there are like 4 or 5 different ones.

You cannot cherry pick from a conclusion of a study......

There is not one thing on the website that tells people not to get proper treatment for cancer.

PSA In particular is not a good screening test.
And prostate unlike most other cancers in that for indolent cancers you can do more harm than good. So not broadly generalisable to all cancers.

I didn't argue against any study, only his (and your) consistent misrepresentations of them. Those 9037 studies may indicate eating large amounts of red meat seems to raise the risk of certain cancers, they never claim red meat causes cancer, no legitimate study would make that leap, and no legitimate scientist would lie to you about that....but he does.

Stating there are studies that say highly processed cured red meat appears to contain carcinogens is true. Saying those studies concluded and claimed eating red meat is the same or worse than heavy smoking is wholly unsupported nonsense. He did the latter....and you repeat it.

Sweet zombie Jesus...."they" huh? They who? Clearly huh? Clear to whom? That's not what that would mean even if it was in the study, which I doubt. Your obvious bias completely overwhelms your ability to read a study.

Besides, who eats >2.5 lbs of highly processed cured red meat every week for life?
Keep in mind that's >2.5lbs cooked/processed weight that appears to raise your risk, (so probably 5-7.5lbs uncooked weight) without a rate of rise listed (the study didn't say "serious risk", did it, I would bet it said "elevated risk" or similar if it actually said anything about risk), so you must make umpteen leaps away from logic and fact to make your statement

.....why are you arguing this again. You eventually conceded you were totally wrong and he had exaggerated and misrepresented data last time we had this discussion. Were you just hoping to not be contradicted again so you could fool/scare some people into your vegan mindset with misinterpretations and misrepresentations of studies you've previously admitted were totally misrepresented by Greger?

Also keep in mind the study was only about highly cured and processed red meats, not just red meat...one more fudging of fact in a long line. It's intended to be studying the results of processing/curing meats, not the meat itself.

Ok, so in a very narrow specific set of circumstances it's correct, but in general it's not. That seems to be an important point not made clear in the video.

Edit: Lazy cancer? First I've heard it called that. Not sure what you mean " you can do more harm than good." Are you suggesting that treatment is worse than the disease?

Read the link please. It says anything more than 300g of RED meat, and ANY processed meat consumption will lead to cancer.

Most people go over these recommendations every single day.

I've never conceded anything. I'm not responding to your rant. I just want this to be clear in case anyone reads your rant and mistakes your loudness for insight.