This study is going to give ammunition to every nutjob who loves his burgers

Lou

Forum Legend
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Reaction score
16,265
Age
69
Location
San Mateo, Ca
Lifestyle
  1. Vegan
Fortunately, not too many of these nutjobs read the New York Times. But I bet that lots of other news agencies pick this up and run with it.

Probably by Wednesday, Dr. Neal Barnard will write a critique of the report that spawned this NYT article.

I actually thought the NYT article was pretty even-handed. but you can bet the outcry from the "conservative base" won't be so objective.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Emma JC
Our friend, Dr. Neal Barnard, just did a FB Live event addressing this "study." Unfortunately I missed all but the last 5 minutes of it. It should be available as a regular video soon. I only got the "urgent" email about 10 mins before it started.

https://www.facebook.com/pg/NealBarnardMD/videos/?ref=page_internal

EDIT - watch it. It's already up and ready to view
 
Last edited:
Our friend, Dr. Neal Barnard, just did a FB Live event addressing this "study." Unfortunately I missed all but the last 5 minutes of it. It should be available as a regular video soon. I only got the "urgent" email about 10 mins before it started.

https://www.facebook.com/pg/NealBarnardMD/videos/?ref=page_internal

EDIT - watch it. It's already up and ready to view


HA!! I totally underestimated Dr. Neal, I thought it would take him till Wednesday.

And I already learned a few facts from Neal that weren't included in the NYT article.

What a guy! ❤❤❤❤
 
Not being a FB person I looked in YouTube for Dr. Neal Barnard's latest video. And I found this one - instead.
Never heard of this guy before, but he did a super good job. especially considering how quickly he responded to this report.
He totally blows up the report.

 
I was looking thru this guy's channel and found some really good stuff.

Favorite quote ever!
"Vegan diets are for everyone. They are like sex...if it is not feeling good then you are doing it wrong! Learn how to do it right ..."
 
Is there a way to find the actual study itself? I like to look in to them, mostly to gleam method as well as the names of the groups who funded it (and a little further than that if there are people at the tops of those groups who are buddy-buddy with people who run various interests, or who used to be CEO of some company etc).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lou
Is there a way to find the actual study itself? I like to look in to them, mostly to gleam method as well as the names of the groups who funded it (and a little further than that if there are people at the tops of those groups who are buddy-buddy with people who run various interests, or who used to be CEO of some company etc).

I don't think so. It's from a journal and those kinds of things usually aren't found online for free. But that youtube I posted above, will probably answer all your questions. the guy actually shows you pages right out of the journal.
 
Haha - seriously! We should start a GoFundMe, LOL

He just needed to move it up further on his suit collar and then at one point it disappeared altogether - maybe just some audio lessons?

I love the visual of the football fields / people / cows /vegetables. It is on their Food Math page

plant-math-diet-new-w1200.jpg


There are two other great visuals on that page as well.

Emma JC
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sax and Lou
So far I'm pretty pleased how the media is covering this

 
  • Like
Reactions: Emma JC
It seems the study found that meat is bad, but perhaps only slightly bad. So the argument is if saying eating meat gives you a 1% chance of dying earlier (or whatever) is it worth taking that risk for some people!

But at least there is more or less agreement that meat (or some types) is bad. Hopefully that's come across in the coverage.

The problem is that in between going from the study to the media's coverage and popular coverage of it some people will left with the memory that meat has zero bad effect, or even a positive effect.

A wider problem here is that the media needs something to not agree with consensus for it to be newsworthy. A news story comes out that's a tiny fraction to one side of the consensus and they try to spin it as much as possible in that direction. Sometimes the story is basically dead on to the consensus and they are still trying to look which way to spin it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emma JC
I love the visual of the football fields / people / cows /vegetables. It is on their Food Math page

Emma JC

There are 53 players on an NFL football team (not counting the practice squad).
So you would need 106 football fields to feed them.
Unless they were vegan football players. Then you would need less than 4 football fields.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Emma JC
Physicians Group Files Federal Petition Against Annals of Internal Medicine over False Red Meat Claim
Journal’s Press Statements Not Supported by Research, Group Says

https://www.pcrm.org/news/news-rele...KlD0fIf8V5bgB6O-v7njMdDXWvdiD5vxPCNIDxxxhkD74


Why does the petition use the word "advertisement"? I thought this was a journal article based on a study. My guess is that maybe AIM has taken out ads to promote their journal. But that was not stated or made clear. Does anyone know?
 
@Lou - I believe that is in reference to their "advertisement", aka, conclusion and resulting recommendation to continue that same amount of meat. That is the message/"advertisement" they are putting out, despite what the research says.

Edit: Meaning, the published *Articles* published by Annals - which are essentially "advertisements."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emma JC