We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
and there's a point in the movie at which Dean Ornish says you know that meat intake is associated with a four to five hundred percent increased risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer or whatever and and you know it's this is he's quoting epidemiology data this is an association this is what's called unhealthy user bias
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
so do we think it's possible that the epidemiology studies that these observational studies are perhaps confounded that some of the people who are eating animal foods are also doing other bad things this is called an unhealthy user bias
I think studies that suggest that meat is associated with negative cardiovascular outcomes are must be carefully considered for confounding and bias like healthy user or in this case non-healthy user or unhealthy user bias which happens very often in these studies
The problem with these studies is consistently healthy user bias, and then on the flip side, more importantly in this case, unhealthy user bias.