• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Bacon, sausage (not that kind bbd--relax) and steak cause cancer--don't eat says WHO

[Anything that tastes or feels good] causes cancer--don't eat/do says WHO
 
Heard this on the radio this morning. Probably not changing a thing in my diet.
 
Epidemiological studies say that everything causes cancer. Basic research isn't really so sure about that.
 
tvcigar said:
Living causes cancer...and every day you are alive, you are a day closer to death. Enjoy life, fuck the morons who want to control everything
Click to expand...

And the swine, because it divides the hoof, yet chews not the cud, it is unclean to you: you shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcass.
 
LCDeacon said:
Is bacon is a processed meat?
Click to expand...

i questioned this, too.


regardless of all of that - i read the one study, and without going through ALL of the data and filters, it would be great if they could include other lifestyle choices of the subjects (beyond gender and geographic location).
unless i know how much or little someone was active as they consumed these particular diets, i have a really really hard time with the conclusion that the diet is what is most strongly correlated to cancer, diseases, etc.
 
lbE08 said:
i questioned this, too.

regardless of all of that - i read the one study, and without going through ALL of the data and filters, it would be great if they could include other lifestyle choices of the subjects (beyond gender and geographic location).
unless i know how much or little someone was active as they consumed these particular diets, i have a really really hard time with the conclusion that the diet is what is most strongly correlated to cancer, diseases, etc.
Click to expand...

One major problem with most epidemiological studies is they rely on self-reporting of data. How honest people are about their diet also colors some of this data. In addition to ignoring (or failing to control for) other factors in lifestyle, the confounding variables in epidemiology studies are typically what keep them from getting used to reflect policy. Except in the WHO's case now, which is asinine. There's a reason epidemiology papers don't get cited very much but are the most popular papers reported on in the media.
 
TownieDeac said:
One major problem with most epidemiological studies is they rely on self-reporting of data. How honest people are about their diet also colors some of this data. In addition to ignoring (or failing to control for) other factors in lifestyle, the confounding variables in epidemiology studies are typically what keep them from getting used to reflect policy. Except in the WHO's case now, which is asinine. There's a reason epidemiology papers don't get cited very much but are the most popular papers reported on in the media.
Click to expand...

yeah - it bothers me that a hugely controversial and false headline ('RED MEAT AND BACON CAUSE CANCER, ACCORDING TO WHO') gets so much traction. obviously that's how the media works these days, but it's just frustrating to see so much false or incomplete information be spread as "fact" and to see how easily people latch onto it as such.
 
people get really worked up about things that may increase your X cancer rate 17%
 
lbE08 said:
yeah - it bothers me that a hugely controversial and false headline ('RED MEAT AND BACON CAUSE CANCER, ACCORDING TO WHO') gets so much traction. obviously that's how the media works these days, but it's just frustrating to see so much false or incomplete information be spread as "fact" and to see how easily people latch onto it as such.
Click to expand...

Working on the publishing side of things, associations like mine (we did not publish this study) are to blame as well. We don't send basic research to the media because it's not about cures or even therapeutics. But it's of higher scientific quality, more likely to garner citations, have actual scientific impact, etc. The stories we do send to the press are RED WINE STOPS CANCER because they get clicks and any traffic back to our site is seen as a plus (ad revenue, potential donations, etc.).
 
TownieDeac said:
Working on the publishing side of things, associations like mine (we did not publish this study) are to blame as well. We don't send basic research to the media because it's not about cures or even therapeutics. But it's of higher scientific quality, more likely to garner citations, have actual scientific impact, etc. The stories we do send to the press are RED WINE STOPS CANCER because they get clicks and any traffic back to our site is seen as a plus (ad revenue, potential donations, etc.).
Click to expand...

right. the media is WAY more about revenue than actually sharing information anymore.
The News used to exist to tell people the important events of the day. Now it's a produced show with the intent of getting higher ratings than all the other options out there... and it's become significantly less newsy.
 
lbE08 said:
right. the media is WAY more about revenue than actually sharing information anymore.
The News used to exist to tell people the important events of the day. Now it's a produced show with the intent of getting higher ratings than all the other options out there... and it's become significantly less newsy.
Click to expand...

News media exists as a vehicle to sell ads.
 
TownieDeac said:
Working on the publishing side of things, associations like mine (we did not publish this study) are to blame as well. We don't send basic research to the media because it's not about cures or even therapeutics. But it's of higher scientific quality, more likely to garner citations, have actual scientific impact, etc. The stories we do send to the press are RED WINE STOPS CANCER because they get clicks and any traffic back to our site is seen as a plus (ad revenue, potential donations, etc.).
Click to expand...
Good comments. I'm glad someone can finally admit that scientists market themselves via the media in order to gain $$$......and I'll add..notoriety. It's not much of a slide from that to biasing the results to generate those headlines, especially when big data is involved like in these epidemiology studies which are just weak/unprovable correlations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top