Paul Saladino· MD
Recent ideas villfying these foods are based on little more than misleading, cherry picked epidmemiology, with many ignored epi studies from Asia strongly contradicting those done in the West showing negative associations.
Loading…
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.
Recent ideas villfying these foods are based on little more than misleading, cherry picked epidmemiology, with many ignored epi studies from Asia strongly contradicting those done in the West showing negative associations.
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.
animal foods have been incorrectly vilified for decades based on misleading epidemiology and actually cherry-picked epidemiology