Spyke

Replies

Comment on

I got permabanned from the Friendly Carnivore com and I think that's really funny.

Reply in thread

It's funny how most real scientists highly respect epidemiology—the field that uncovered the harms of smoking, forever chemicals, thalidomide etc.

The company dupont had to confess and pay a hefty fine for poisoning the planet with pfas chemicals. Clearly they aren't as smart as carnivore influncers.

Why don't they hire some lawyers to hand wave and ignore observational studies because they are "weak evidence" or bad science?

Maybe smoking is good too because it helps you lose weight, reduce anxiety and issues like ibs. You can do a 30 day test and see it for yourself.

Comment on

What proposed law(s) or principle(s) of nature do you find most fascinating?

Reply in thread

Interesting. This is why I favor many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. It doesn't give a special status to an observer. Any interacting entity including a conscious being gets entangled with the quantum state that's being interacted with. In the Schrodinger's cat for example the world splits into two. In one branch the physicist opens the box to see a dead cat. In the other branch, his equivalent sees an alive cat.

On the other extreme it from bit gives the highest privileged status to an observer.

Comment on

I got permabanned from the Friendly Carnivore com and I think that's really funny.

Reply in thread

A zero carb carnivore eats the same amount of meat as 98% of the world.

These kinds of claims are the reason why I can't take carnivores seriously.

You eat about 400g of beef a day. (some carnivores eat twice that or more. I'm making a conservative estimate) Not to mention some of the "fat" you eat is tallow. which is basically rendered from meat like beef or pork.

That's about 150kg of meat per year.

Most humans are in China and India. Chinese eat about 60kg of meat per year and India is 6 kg.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_consumption

Comment on

I got permabanned from the Friendly Carnivore com and I think that's really funny.

Reply in thread

thanks I am familiar enough with falsifiability and interventional studies to understand what you mean.

As I said I have carefully studied epidimiology and it's historical successes. And I have directly experienced how the branch is viewed in the communities of actual scientists. I trust their judgement more than some health influencers and guys on the internet obsessed with spreading carnivore diet.

I don't think we'll make much progress here. I'll go with carnivore diet bad.

Comment on

I got permabanned from the Friendly Carnivore com and I think that's really funny.

Reply in thread

I don't consider epidemiology to be bs or just hypothesis generating as do most scientists.

It finds subtle long term trends that are too impractical to find with other methods like RCTs. So if a lot of high quality epidemiology says saturated fats increase heart disease risk by 20-30% over decades then I will likely believe it. Just like it found a trend with smoking.

Why do you consider this epidemiology better quality than other epidemiology?

The same reason why any experiment can be better quality and well respected than others. You should look at a study's design, strengths, weaknesses etc and evaluate it.

Let me ask you one question back. Do you consider astronomy or evolution to be bullshit too because they are based on observation as well?

Comment on

I got permabanned from the Friendly Carnivore com and I think that's really funny.

Reply in thread

I fail to see how epidemiology is different from any other branches of science. Apart from all the successes I mentioned it has done a great deal in understanding infectious diseases.

a lot of high quality epidemiology says

With better data you can overthrow any theory or hypothesis. I don't think anyone thinks the consensus view cannot be changed or plant based results from epidemiology are unfalsifiable.

You reached the end