Before you entrust your health to what the Medical/Nutrition literatures "shows", you might want to consider that a large % is complete, made up bullshit.
If a Nobel prize winner would do this, then who wouldn't?
https://retractionwatch.com/2024/09/13/nobel-prize-winner-tallies-two-more-retractions-bringing-total-to-13/
Thoughts on this list?
note1yxjj2e6977grnqnmu8zurmd7ve8j49v43uqw00mlnu3rg2ta30gsltepxm
please don't let @Mike Dilger see this.
he thinks a meta-analysis is definitive proof. you would think as a Computer Scientist he would understand the concept of Garbage-In Garbage-Out but apparently not.
it doesn't matter how many studies you do if they are all fake. and meta-analysis is worse because you can choose which studies to look at thus choosing to look at ONLY the fake ones.
meta-analysis is just an extra layer of fake on top of already fake.
Your sarcasm knows no ends.
I like to have a unique take. I'm gonna disagree with everyone on something.
generally that is a good strategy. if you are in complete agreement it generally means you have forfeited the use of your brain. like the fucking retarded Carnivores and B1tc0iners who can only bleat "meat heals" and "b1tc0in solves this" in one voice as a herd.
or as Mark Twain said "whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority - it is time to pause and reflect"
the problem is that i am already applying that principle myself - i am already disagreeing with every group - and i am never wrong, so to disagree with me is actually a strategy with 100% fail rate.
still, i respect your right to be wrong !
Ben Goldacre wrote a few books on many ways the science goes wrong... Bad Science and Bad Pharma. And he did not cover it all.
Keep thinking outside the box.
Oddbean new post about login | logout