If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Govt. Health Warnings. Should we take them with a pinch of salt?
Only joking. The research into red meat and processed meat, cancer and heart disease. They crunch data from a group of lifestyle records over time, but ... how do they isolate red / processed meat consumption from other factors, variables - other lifestyle factors, genetic elements? The answer I suspect is that they can't. Fortunately I gave up eating food in 1985, so that's OK.
There are various statistical means for doing so. Go and read Ben Goldacre's blog for detail
But seven units per week? That sounds extremely low, even by the standards of the nanny state.
Perhaps he did mean per day, then. He certainly followed up by recommending a wine shop where they had a very nice Fleurie. Judging from his size and shape I don't imagine he takes very much notice of the dietary recommendations of the nanny state.
It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
I once worked on a programme with a director who told me that I was a true gentleman. It had me worried for days !
I thought a true gentleman was a man who knew how to play the banjo* but didn't.
*substitute bagpipes, harpsichord or any other instrument which on continued hearing does you harm.
On the question of health warnings why do they continually change the goalposts. The lazy newsgatherers pick up on some headline-making research and then plug it to death on every news programme of the day then its forgotten until the next one comes along, and why oh why are there so many people paid to do research on the bl...ing obvious.
I thought a true gentleman was a man who knew how to play the banjo* but didn't.
*substitute bagpipes, harpsichord or any other instrument which on continued hearing does you harm.
On the question of health warnings why do they continually change the goalposts. The lazy newsgatherers pick up on some headline-making research and then plug it to death on every news programme of the day then its forgotten until the next one comes along, and why oh why are there so many people paid to do research on the bl...ing obvious.
They move the goalposts, because moving the goalposts suits them.
Its part of the fear agenda that they love.
Mind you there is plenty of toxic C**p in our food and environment.
But the government don't do much about most of it
Oh, and the "newsgatherers" frequently just churn out the lines given to them by governments departments.......
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
It's not so long since a government department said that Marmite was more dangerous than Coca Cola, simple because the former contained a higher percentage of salt. No consideration of the fact that one was a concentrate and the other a liquid.
It's not so long since a government department said that Marmite was more dangerous than Coca Cola, simple because the former contained a higher percentage of salt. No consideration of the fact that one was a concentrate and the other a liquid.
Only joking. The research into red meat and processed meat, cancer and heart disease. They crunch data from a group of lifestyle records over time, but ... how do they isolate red / processed meat consumption from other factors, variables - other lifestyle factors, genetic elements? The answer I suspect is that they can't. Fortunately I gave up eating food in 1985, so that's OK.
One major flaw in the way this kind of news is presented is that no attempt is made to interpret the alleged increase risk. A rare exception to the coverage of the risks associated with eating red meat happened in one of R4 news programmes (I think it was World at One) where they brought in someone to quantify what that increased risk. It amounted to a decrease in life expectancy of one year.
and why oh why are there so many people paid to do research on the bl...ing obvious.
Well actually it's because what we always thought was obvious sometimes turns out to be wrong when you actually do some measurements! For example, it used to be common knowledge that smoking was good for you and that asbestos was totally harmless.
The problem is not with the research at all but with the way it is reported.
And certainly, if I go to the doctor's and he advises me to eat less of one thing and more of another, I would rather that were the result of proper scientific research rather than a bunch of people just making it up or declaring that God told them.
Comment