Observational Nonsense
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-10-07 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Personal Health , 135 references Ignore this thread
Observational Nonsense
[Comments enabled]


A new set of analyses published Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine challenges the widespread recommendations to cut back on red and processed meats.

The prominent medical journal has also published a new recommendation from a panel of scientists, many of whom are not nutrition experts: "The panel suggests adults continue current processed meat consumption," according to the guideline paper. In other words: no need to cut back.

In response all the people who have made recommendations that have gotten you sick, given you cancer, caused obesity and diabetes at record rates are howling "oh no you're wroooooooong!"

Uh huh.

"This is perplexing, given the ... clear evidence for harm associated with high red meat intake," says Frank Hu, the chair of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

No such evidence exists.

Observational studies are not evidence.  They can't be.  They're self-reported and cannot control for confounding factors because there is no control over the quality of the data.

"There may be a benefit [from] reducing your intake of red or processed meat, and people should know that," says Bradley Johnston, one of the authors of the new analyses.

On the other hand, "there may not be a benefit at all," Johnston says. "We're uncertain."

That's what science is; reporting, accurately, when you don't know.

But it's very hard to make money that way.

But this is completely impractical, says Harvard's Rimm. "Can you imagine the cost if you had to ... give patients red meat almost every day for a decade and then convince the other group ... not to eat meat for a decade?

Actually, is it?

We have people claiming that they're "lifetime traumatized" by a one time sausage inclusion in what they thought was a vegan dish.  I doubt it will be hard to find people that never eat meat.

Hu and his colleagues says there is a consensus already: "To improve both human health and environmental sustainability, it is important to adopt dietary patterns that are high in healthy plant-based foods and relatively low in red and processed meats."

Ah, there it is.

1% human health, 99% political bull**** aimed at yet another environmental scam.

Why aren't all these rat bastards in prison?

View with responses (opens new window)