"But what the study didn’t say is that its lead author has past research ties to the meat and food industry. The new report, published this week in the Annals of Internal Medicine, stunned scientists and public health officials because it contradicted longstanding nutrition guidelines about limiting consumption of red and processed meats. The analysis, led by Bradley C. Johnston, an epidemiologist at Dalhousie University in Canada, and more than a dozen researchers concluded that warnings linking meat consumption to heart disease and cancer are not backed by strong scientific evidence.... Dr. Johnston also indicated on a disclosure form that he did not have any conflicts of interest to report during the past three years. But as recently as December 2016 he was the senior author on a similar study that tried to discredit international health guidelines advising people to eat less sugar. That study, which also appeared in the Annals of Internal Medicine, was paid for by the International Life Sciences Institute, or ILSI, an industry trade group largely supported by agribusiness, food and pharmaceutical companies and whose members have included McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Cargill, one of the largest beef processors in North America. The industry group, founded by a top Coca-Cola executive four decades ago, has long been accused by the World Health Organization and others of trying to undermine public health recommendations to advance the interests of its corporate members." (NYT.)
Johnston's response: "That money was from 2015 so it was outside of the three year period for disclosing competing interests. I have no relationship with them whatsoever."
So... okay to eat meat?
October 5, 2019
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
91 comments:
It's always been OK to eat red meat. And the proof of the pudding is in the eating: Outcome data from the high protein diet vs. high carb diet are pretty convincing.
I just assume that any science that bucks conventional wisdom on issues contrary to corporate interests is funded somehow.
So... okay to eat meat?
Since we literally evolved to do so, I would say yes.
"So... okay to eat meat?"
There's no law against.
I haven't looked but if the study is a presentation with scientific rigor, is anyone critiquing the science? Ad hoc attacks of conflicts of interest are suspect...
BTW why are these conflicts only criticized when the affiliation is with a corporation? Government and/or academia money is just as green and those entities are just as capable of lying and manipulation, if not more so...
Plus, cows taste good.
So... okay to eat meat?
In moderation, of course.
Red meat is the best concentrated food source for protein.So it is a basic medicine for Type O bloods types. The rest of you guys please eat the vegetables so there are more Ribeyes left for us.
Surprising? Not really, unless you’re not paying attention to the recent research on nutrition debunking all of the flawed theories claiming that consuming dietary fat causes heart disease.
That one word speaks volumes. Anybody who is surprised here should not be writing articles to inform the public.
There was never any solid evidence that eating meat is dangerous or unhealthy.
"Eat well. Stay fit. Die anyway"
Of course it is! I'm on Keto now and I love my red meat.
THEOLDMAN
If red meat isn't bad for you, why does it taste so good?
Of course it's "okay to eat meat." We didn't reach the top of the evolutionary pecking order for nothing.
The handlers are not at all used to having a boss that is used to being a boss and doing whatever he deems needs to be done. They are used to having a boss that does what they tell him to do.
I bet it is very concerning. They aren't needed at all really and should probably be fired. I would imagine they hope that doesn't happen. But I hope it does since they are obviously leaking security risks.
I think we should ask Greta.
Yes, it's OK. High fat/protein diets are healthy. My wife has corrected her cholesterol nad blood sugar by eating a high fat/protein diet. Processed meat, IDK.
https://medium.com/@davidludwigmd/genetic-study-supports-carbohydrate-insulin-model-of-obesity-327d84be6d2b
I am thinking that the pushback is coming mostly from climate scare types. Look for the word “responsible” or “concerned” in the name of the group as a tip off that they aren’t really questioning the science in question, just its ramifications for leftism’s regious practices.
It’s almost as if there weren’t uncounted millions of buffalo roaming the plains of North America. God only knows what the plains looked like before the Indians arrived and killed off most of the megafauna.
I always thought the war against Red meat was absurd, although meat used to be far to fatty, so I'm glad they're producing more lean meat. I didn't like those big gobs on fat on my steak or pork chops as a kid, and I still don't. And 90% hamburgers tastes as good as 80%. And i don't care what people say, eating salami isn't good for you.
https://medium.com/@davidludwigmd/genetic-study-supports-carbohydrate-insulin-model-of-obesity-327d84be6d2b
Avoid processed meat, but red meat is OK. It is becoming more clear that for many people elevated cholesterol and arterial inflammation is caused more by eating too many refined sugars and simple carbs (inflammatory foods)
The reporter is looking hard for a reason to undermine the story. Based on the facts here, he is correct that he has no conflicts if interest in the last 3 years. (Almost 3 years ago he did a study. In sugar? So?)
That said, given that his results contradict most other research, the best conclusion is not that meat is healthy, but that questions have been raised about studies showing it’s unhealthy and more research is needed before coming to any definitive conclusions.
We do our best to eat meat from only healthy animals, as best as we can determine, that is minimally processed. The study linking cholesterol (the bandaids of the circulatory system) and animal fat was debunked decades ago. That said, moderation is also important.
The only thing they epidemiologist have proved lately is that you shouldn't pay attention to them. Their main mode of research is data dredging and statistical shenanigans. There was a time that they practiced good science but that time is long over. Let's not forget that the EPA, Greenpeace and the epidemiologist decided the risk of chlorine causing cancer was greater than the millions of lives that it saved worldwide by providing safe water which convinced Peru to stop putting chlorine in their water in 1991 causing a cholera outbreak that sickened almost a million people and killed 6000. There is nutritional value in a McDonald's hamburger. The fact that so many people cannot even contemplate that shows how far we've been brainwashed by these people
Of course, it is ok to eat meat. Even red meat. Our nearest relatives, chimpanzees, love to eat meat. And, yes, the males tend to eat more than the females, because they do the hunting, and not all of it gets back to the tribe. We are long adapted to being omnivores. What turns out to be bad for us is eating too much grain. The classic USDA Food Pyramid is essentially upside down (since the USDA’s mandate is to support farmers). Looking at skeletons over the millennia, it is apparently fairly obvious when humans switched from hunter/gatherer to farming. Height dropped an average of 5”, teeth started falling out, and bone density dropped significantly. Moreover, Type 2 Diabetes surfaced, and then became an epidemic.
okay to eat meat?
Do it anyway.
"Of course it's "okay to eat meat." We didn't reach the top of the evolutionary pecking order for nothing."
I saw a T-shirt in a Nebraska convenience store that said just about that. It had a picture of a guy shooting a deer.
It speaks volumes that the critics are attempting to discredit the study based on the researcher's past associations rather than engage with the research and identify problems with it.
Go ahead and have some bacon for breakfast and beef for dinner.
One of my baseline assumptions about nutrition is that everything they told us about healthy eating in the ‘70’s is wrong.
The factoids about height, teeth, bones, and Diabetes in my previous post came from a section on farming in “The 10,000 Year Explosion” I happened to be reading last night (since commenting on Ann’s blog overnight is no longer realistic, with the moderators asleep). Shout out to Dr K, who recommended the book a year or two ago. I had started the book back then, got distracted, noticed it in a Kindle folder a couple days ago, and are, again engrossed.
Gary Taubes reviewed the science behind the demonization of meat and fat almost two decades ago, and throughly documented its weakness and also the interest conflicts of some prominent scientists behind it. He also documented some of the earlier, higher quality science from Germany that, it turns out, aligns better with the insulin hypothesis Taubes used to advocate. This is old news except that paradigm shifts take time. Prominent proponents of the dietary fat/dietary cholesterol school need to retire, apparently.
It’s harder to do a study that can lead to prescriptive recommendations, but it is not difficult as this study did to cast doubt on the quality of the evidence behind our current low-fat dietary prescriptions. Those are based on junk science.
The official government 'food pyramid' is perfect.
Perfectly upside down.
Oh, and eggs are bad for you again. Still.
Bruce Hayden said...We are long adapted to being omnivores.
One need look no further than our teeth—canines for ripping meat and molars for grinding grain. Of course, meat and grain are both different today than they were back when evolution was designing our mouth.
I don't think there are any scientific studies out there that don't have a conflict of interest. A great book on the subject is Waterlogged by Tim Noakes which discusses how many of the sports hydration studies were all funded by Gatoraide. Eat grass feed beef, especially organ meat, as part of a healthy diet and drink plain mineral water. The less processing the better.
Cows = herbivores; Us = omnivores. Quis erat demonstratum.
What if it’s all been a big fat lie was in the NYTimes magazine in September 2001, and he wrote two books in the next few years.
“I saw a T-shirt in a Nebraska convenience store that said just about that. It had a picture of a guy shooting a deer.“
Though, using your pickup is probably more sporting. Well, maybe earlier in the year - a lot of this year’s crop are just now discovering Darwin, when it comes to crossing the highway. Heck, around here, at this time of year, I am not sure if bow hunting, or even using a handgun, is that sporting. I am actually thinking of taking up bow hunting, since we have a silly town statute on the books that outlaws discharging firearms within the city limits, and it is fairly easy to get within a few feet of the pre venisons.
"refined sugars"
Pet peeve of mine: If you are talking high fructose corn syrum, you may be right, but "processed" or "refined" sugar (glucose) is simply dried/crystalized syrup and recrystalized to reduce the natural color bodies and make it white. NOT bad for you in moderation..... It's found in every cell in your body.
"Of course, it is ok to eat meat. Even red meat. Our nearest relatives, chimpanzees, love to eat meat."
Well, if the Chimps do it, it must be OK.
"So... okay to eat meat?"
I would have to read the paper, but since the author is being attacked for a technical violation rather than the research itself, (which isn't even valid since conflicts of interest have to do with funding, not publication dates,) I will assume the paper is sound.
Prior to 1900, people used to have a high carb diet. lots of bread (Europe), Potatoes, and Rice (Asia). The English speaking world was unusual in that we were rich enough to eat plenty of red meat. But a diet based on rice or wheat didn't result in illness, because people were thin and active. If we were all burning up 900 calories a day doing farm work or manual house keeping, we'd could eat a high carb diet and be OK.
Yes. Very Ok. I am 65 male about 95 percent carnivore. If I go out to eat I pick at the veggies and taters. Lost 30 lbs and feel like I am 20 years younger. Check you Shawn Baker. He is big rough and says what he thinks but he is getting great results as are many people going full blown carnivore. I follow his twitter https://twitter.com/SBakerMD
Have you seen the documentary “The Magic Pill”? If not highly recommend.
Seemingly incontrovertible evidence that the scientist who built the US food pyramid was also compromised/dishonest. How did that turn out? So hell yeah. Eat some meat. Along with a shit ton of healthy fat like coconut and avocado. Sugar IS the killer.
" (since commenting on Ann’s blog overnight is no longer realistic, with the moderators asleep). "
You can comment, you just can't get the (dubious) thrill of immediately seeing your comment posted.
I want to know who funded "We need to eat the babies!" lady.
"You can comment, you just can't get the (dubious) thrill of immediately seeing your comment posted."
Seriously- do you not get it- it isn't the "dubious" thrill of seeing the comment- it is that there is no conversation overnight, and increasingly, none during the long stretches of the day.
Blogger Yancey Ward said...
“Seriously- do you not get it- it isn't the "dubious" thrill of seeing the comment- it is that there is no conversation”
Feature, not a bug.
it is that there is no conversation
Which results in more one-and-done, drive-by comments.
Not very interesting.
This study says nothing about what we can or should eat. It merely casts doubt on the scientific evidence behind some dietary proscriptions.
Humans evolved as omnivores- eat whatever you came across that was edible. Red meat was one of those things- it is why we became hunters.
It will eventually be a hate crime to eat a steak- I am not joking.
Let's speak some unfortunate truisms about modern day science:
1. What a lot of scientists, or at least the scientists you hear about, are doing these days is not science. They are propagandizing, or trying to hold onto their phoney-baloney jobs, or trying to divine great knowledge from statistics too thin to be of any use.
2. Journalists, in the main, know nothing about science, which is fine since they generally don't care anyway. The stuff you see in the news is either there to push a preferred narrative or is the equivalent of clickbait, and whether the science is sound or not is not their concern.
3. Nutrition and health science is, in general, bull****. One of the grand pillars of science is experimentation and it is exceedingly difficult to experiment on humans. This because, among other things, it is generally unethical to experiment on humans, it is very difficult to control for all human variables, and humans have this bad habit of both lying and not doing what they are told. This sort of crap has been going on since at least the 1960s and probably earlier. I had a class in college which was pretty much a "detect the bull****" class, which was filled to the brim with health studies that tried to extrapolate general population conclusions from the results of six (6) subjects, or included 100K+ health records but all of them were from an obscure province in China and the data was suspect to begin with, or statistical studies that had two dozen levels of normalization to wrangle out a 10% statically insignificant effect but they published the thing anyway as some sort of breakthrough.
Pretty much what happened is science figured out smoking was bad for you - the statistical evidence was so overwhelming that it was hard to miss - and they have been trying to recreate the magic. The marginal returns have been grim.
320Busdriver said...
Blogger Yancey Ward said...
“Seriously- do you not get it- it isn't the "dubious" thrill of seeing the comment- it is that there is no conversation”
Feature, not a bug.
No, bug. The comment threads are much less fun without any hope of connected back and forth conversation. When I can’t tell if 20 people have already said what I want to say or if someone has introduced a great new twist that I’d rather riff off of but can’t because I can’t see it yet.
I don’t question Althouse’s decision to enable moderation, I doubt any of us fully understand the disruption she is battling, but these threads feel less “ours” if we can’t drive the conversation on our own, without her presence guiding and watching over us.
Rcocean asserts: I always thought the war against Red meat was absurd, although meat used to be far to fatty, so I'm glad they're producing more lean meat. I didn't like those big gobs on fat on my steak or pork chops as a kid, and I still don't. And 90% hamburgers tastes as good as 80%. And i don't care what people say, eating salami isn't good for you.
Actually, red meat that is well marbled with fat is far tastier and more tender than 'lean' cuts. And lean ground beef is not as good as that with higher fat content. That said, I usually buy leaner, grass-fed beef.
"Seriously- do you not get it- it isn't the "dubious" thrill of seeing the comment- it is that there is no conversation overnight, and increasingly, none during the long stretches of the day."
Frankly, I was disappointed in the quality of the overnight conversations. People did not take good advantage of the opportunity when they had it. Look back on the last 20 or 30 cafes that were open for immediate publishing and be honest about how good the conversation was. You're nostalgic about a false past.
My brother was a vegan and had high 'bad' cholesterol and was always annoyed because my labs were great even though I eat eggs and meat nearly every day [also lots of vegetables and few carbs]. Sadly, he died unexpectedly two years ago at 69 even though he was physically fit. 'Natural causes' but probably stroke or heart attack.
Frankly, I was disappointed in the quality of the overnight conversations.
Conversations? We're allowed to have conversations again?
I guess Althouse's idea of 'conversation' is the didactic sort.
The problem with nutrition science, as it is commonly practiced, is its one size fits all approach to modeling dietary recommendations, i.e.; there is A diet that is good for all of us, and food items that are bad for all of us. The research turns high correlation into cause and effect.
Yes, it is and always has been safe to eat proteins.
"Look back on the last 20 or 30 cafes that were open for immediate publishing and be honest about how good the conversation was. You're nostalgic about a false past."
A good reader, Althouse, will skip right past the dreck, thus ignoring it. The bad parts are irrelevant- but the good parts are now non-existent overnight, and non-existent during a good part of the day, too. You have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
I do have to ask this- is it really easier to curate the comments prior to publication than afterwards? I mean, you do stil have to read them, don't you, and then selectively delete the ones you don't want published, so what have you gained?
There are actual studies conducted but they are small, expensive and their duration is short. Most of the research behind the fat proscription is epidemiological. Large data sets but lots of confounding factors and at best they can show correlations. It’s a poor basis on which to build a prescriptive food pyramid. My personal experience is that I’m very sensitive to carbs—they increase my appetite and propensity to gain weight. That seems to be pretty common in the west.
Well, what does your appetite tell you? At the end of the day that's your best guideline. I never bought into the 'no butter, no fat' diet nonsense either. The key is to remember: the only excess one should enjoy in life is an excess of moderation.
Just remember, if God didn't want us to eat the animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.
It's healthiest to eat meat. Here's the proof.
You can go anywhere in the world and kill 99.999% of all animals. I don't use 100% because someone's going to bring up that Sushi fish they'll kill you. But all those animals will be nutritious for you. If you do that with 99.999% of the plants they will not be nutritious, probably make you sick and possible kill you. We have a lot of vegetables that we know we can eat safely but that's been a long learning process. We are clearly made to eat meat
I agree with those who are taking Ann to task about the new, slow moderation process. As far as cafe's are concerned, Ann, I don't come to your site for undirected bullshit. I come here to peruse what you have found interesting that day and to see whether I react to it or not. About 75% of the time I react to your regular posts - to the cafe's 0%.
I don’t question Althouse’s decision to enable moderation, I doubt any of us fully understand the disruption she is battling,
Long time commenter Fen got pissed off and took over comments by repeatedly posting mile long text. That was the straw.
For all we know, he may still be doing it and is being deleted before we see it.
Real time moderation turns it into a full time job rather than simply checking several times a day for banned .culprits needing deletion.
So, frustrating for commenters who feel this blog is kinda a gathering place but understandable from AA/Meade point of view.
As for Fen,
look younger longer with meat.
Vegans dont get as much collagen and it takes its toll.
re: cannibalism/eating babies-- if you simply must, out of necessity,
or just want to be fashionable/'open minded'/"Green", DONT eat the brains.
Kuru is a nasty disease akin to Mad Cow, as studies in Borneo have shown.
During the research/interviewing of the tribes studied, an elderly woman's
eyes lit up when asked about human flesh, and claimed it was the sweetest of meats. Skin, not so much, she cautioned.
The incidents of Kuru dropped sharply after they were advised to curtail cannibalism.
find a graceful way to bow out when they ask you over for dinner.
Salad is very nutritionist for the animals that I eat.
Blogger tim maguire said..
"No, bug."
FWIW I agree with you, but I don't have to herd the cats.
Blogger FullMoon said....
"For all we know, he may still be doing it and is being deleted before we see it"
Somehow I doubt it. I'd be surprised if it did not achieve the desired effect.
“Humans evolved as omnivores- eat whatever you came across that was edible. Red meat was one of those things- it is why we became hunters.”
It isn’t something new. I think that most of the other apes, excluding gorillas, eat meat. Esp chimpanzees and bonobos, our closest genetic living relatives. Just like out hunter/gatherer ancestors, the males go out on hunting parties, while the females stay home with the young and do the gathering. Apparently, monkey meat is good. They even have been known to engage in a spot of canibalism, if the unfortunate main event is from a different tribe.
I don't care what they say or said, I'm gonna eat MEAT.
At 53 I tried the Ketogenic diet after a year of vigorous exercise had failed to produce any weight loss or body fat loss. It only took about 5 months to lose about 15% of weight and BMI went from 28 to 24. Body fat went from 21 to less than 18 and BP also decreased a fair amount. The weird thing was to see stubborn belly fat melt away while eating copious amounts of fat. Just really low carb intake. 20 or less grams per day. There is a plethora of really good sugar substitutes now available that have no glycemic effect if you need to satisfy your sweet tooth. I’ve also met people with diabetes or pre-diabetics who have gotten off of insulin by doing Keto. I think the body runs better on fat for fuel as compared to carbs.
Another thing to consider: Our body can make glucose from protein through gluconeogenesis but it cannot make protein from carbohydrates.
Taubes is a very intelligent and thorough science journalist. Everything he says here, in July 2002 not 2001 as I thought, has held up. It’s hard to overstate how much of a lone voice he was at that time, and how much resistance he got from established academics. Stephen Guyenet in particular went after Taubes in a very pompous way, but ultimately I don’t think he ever registered major points in that debate. I know some folks have since walked back their endorsements of Taubes, but this article got the ball rolling in terms of undoing the damage of the anti fat establishment.
And another: Cancer cells need glucose to replicate. This I learned watching the Magic Pill when they interviewed the nice lady from Milwaukee who cured her breast cancer with diet. No drug therapy/ surgery.
BTW, Pants, re diet, if you are reading this: I really am praying for you every morning. May He bless you with courage and faith to succeed in your endeavor.
I am a one and done, drive-by commenter. The community conversation atmosphere here, went away several years ago. In part because of the on again, off again moderation. There's no point in hanging around to read the comments of other people who's comments are unrelated to mine, because they have not read them. Now I skim through here once a day. I seldom leave comments.
“I do have to ask this- is it really easier to curate the comments prior to publication than afterwards? I mean, you do stil have to read them, don't you, and then selectively delete the ones you don't want published, so what have you gained?”
Yes, it was much harder and had in fact become impossible. The alternative is no comments section at all. I have some very bad actors HARASSING me. Perhaps you are not aware. The lack of empathy for my problem is depressing.
I have some very bad actors HARASSING me. Perhaps you are not aware. The lack of empathy for my problem is depressing.
I have empathy Althouse. Actually I am angry at the harassers for being nasty and ruining the experience for all involved.
However, they "win" by forcing you into curating comments prior to publication. That ruins the flow of conversation and seems to be more work for you. Why is it harder to delete after publication?
You're nostalgic about a false past.
Yeah, we seem to think that we remember back when Althouse was cool.
The lack of empathy for my problem is depressing.
1) You are the queen, the empress, the she-deity, of lacking empathy.
2) My free advice, which obviously I must avoid couching in any terms resembling an order, is to just shut up and give Fen his blowie and move on. You didn't give a damn about Chuck and Inga. You just don't like getting called on your shit. (I have no idea of MEG's volume, and she's been preposterous in the past, but most of what we saw from her that slipped through mod was relatively on point.)
Among the trash you like is reality shows. Why don't you have a weekly or monthly or ad hoc poll on who should be voted off the island? The mob having spoken, the named contestants might even go quietly.
Why is it harder to delete after publication?
Part of the problem is not only the bad actors, but the people who insist on responding to them again and again and again and again and again. That's how the 200-300 comment boxes happened, and at least half of them were the stupid back-and-forth that just ruined it for everyone.
This is why we can't have nice things.
“I have empathy Althouse. Actually I am angry at the harassers for being nasty and ruining the experience for all involved. However, they "win" by forcing you into curating comments prior to publication. That ruins the flow of conversation and seems to be more work for you. Why is it harder to delete after publication?”
Empathy requires imagination. Use it. Don’t ask me to lay it out for you. That’s inconsistent with the claim of empathy. Again, it’s depressing. You only made me feel worse!
Getting back on-topic (if that's OK):
"So... okay to eat meat?"
Depends on what you want:
-If you eat red meat, you die.
-If you don't eat red meat, you die.
Your choice.
As I've mentioned before, human diet advice is about the same quality science as climate science but for somewhat different reasons. In the present case, the reason is that we cannot do (actually, choose not to do) controlled nutrition studies on large, properly randomized samples of humans. So it is basically impossible to find out what is and is not important in human diet.
Having said that, it is clear that we are set up to be omnivorous, or opportunistic, feeders. We have neither a vegetarian nor carnivore dentition and digestion. Given the likely conditions of our origin, it is likely that the details don't matter too much, at least for the first 30 or 40 years.
I've had it with getting worked up about this crap. I'm on bonus miles, and I plan to enjoy them while eating and drinking whatever I damn please.
comment ça va?
Trolls and Spam
Spam: Is It Meat??
"Everything in Moderation" ...including Moderation
Is it okay to eat meat?
Not only is it okay, but there is a sub-movement within the "low-carb community" to eat almost nothing but meat. Jordan Peterson and his daughter Mikhaila are probably the best-known practitioners I know of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N39o_DI5laI
But Shawn Baker, as Koot Katmandu noted, is also big advocate, and he is an MD.
My favorite nutrition / physiology blogger is this guy. He has been doing low-carb-high-fat for almost two decades, and he didn't think keto-carnivore (also known as the Paleo Keto Diet) had anything to offer him until he tried it.
As others have noted, we're going to die anyway. To me, it is not so much that we die or what we die of. It is when we die of it. The whole point of low-carb (whether carnivore or not) is to stave off premature withering and death as long as possible by reducing exposure to the plant foods that may contribute to it.
The lack of empathy for my problem is depressing.
Maybe you understand how we felt when you were calling male rape victims splooge stooges now.
Headline never seen:
"Extensive study finds no relationship between consumption of red meat with anything"
The problem with studies is that they always show some relationship or they don't get published, when the ones that "fail" may be of most use to the public and perhaps most accurate.
So, the author of this study received money from agribusiness. Yet, we never look at funding and personal biases of those who denounce red meat. The public tends to think that those who find links between anything and bad health are doing so out of virtue. They are there to help us. They are not.
I believe people seeing animal grease turn solid after it cools off (e.g. bacon grease in the pan) made them imagine that the grease they ingest must be doing the same thing in their bodies. So if their arteries are clogged it must be all that solidified grease clogging them up. But our bodies aren’t room temperature. At 98 degrees grease does NOT congeal but stays a liquid. It’s just as ridiculous as seeing water turn to ice below 32 degrees then think if you drink water it’ll turn to ice in your body. Scientists are subjective beings like everyone else and never bothered to prove or disprove what was seemingly so self evident.
Yancey,
"I do have to ask this- is it really easier to curate the comments prior to publication than afterwards?"
Speak and not for Althouse, but just generically: yes, and depending on how disruptive the undesirable commenter is, by up to an order of magnitude -- there's all the followup to the disruptive posts that are simply not there with the pre-screening model.
The old timers here may remember Cedarford; the regulars developed a protocol that said he needed to be almost entirely ignored -- but not quite entirely, because of the "silence implies consent" fallacy. So people were pretty good about one, and most often only one, response to his nonsense per post.
Anybody else amazed that affiliation with government organizations - the greatest confirmed group of serial and generational liars there are - garners no scrutiny from the media whatsoever? Media may be part of - or even controller of - government rather than a counter-balance to it.
Post a Comment