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.
but for AFP fact check to say that claims that seed oils are harmful or unsupported is patently false that they're only going to look at Darius mazafarian's opinion and as we've seen his 2009 meta-analysis in place medicine excluded many important trials like Sydney diet Heart Minnesota coronary trial and others including diet Leon and he conflated Omega-3s with omega-6s Etc
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.
and then Darius mozafarian wrotes writes a meta analysis about seed oils and says hey look here's a forest plot that shows that they're neutral or positive and Facebook uses that to fact check all of my posts on seed oils that's how it goes that is based on data that's super old oh yeah it's all based on super old data and a meta analysis that's super questionable and he's including a lot of trials in his meta analysis and the forest plot that should be thrown out because they're absolute garbage
in the meta analysis that Darius has done from Tufts on seed oils he's included multiple trials trials that are complete baloney, right? That should not be included. They're not really double blind. They're not really randomized and they certainly are multivariable. They're horrible seed oils trials.