A new study found that completely eliminating meat from one’s diet may significantly reduce the risk of developing cancer, with figures reaching up to 45% less risk for some cancers compared to those…
Please Try to focus on the scientific aspects and refrain from making overly partisan or inflammatory content. Our aim is to foster a respectful environment where we can delve into the scientific foundations of these topics.
Editing your comment to include a attack on someones character is inflammatory.
This is not about your character. It’s about your beliefs being incompatible with modern medical science. You mod this public health community but have pseudoscientific beliefs which are diametrically opposed to a modern understanding of public health. Attacking your character would be to say you’re doing this out of malice or baselessly accusing you of shilling. I believe you believe this, and I believe that if you believe a Western pattern diet is killing people (it is; this is the main thing we agree on), it shows strong ethical character to try to warn people about it. What’s problematic is that your solution to it is so divorced from science that people who just read comments and nod along because they sound plausible need to be aware of the lens you’re interpreting this study through.
You are bringing in external bias into a discussion of one study, which is what this post is about.
We disagree on diet decisions, but nothing I’ve said in this post has been about my personal choices. You are escalating a grudge you have had historically with me into a unrelated discussion. That is a definitional attack on character.
Please stay on topic, which is the study in the post, if you want to attack my character as human or literate abilities you may do so in a different community, but not here.
Please Try to focus on the scientific aspects and refrain from making overly partisan or inflammatory content. Our aim is to foster a respectful environment where we can delve into the scientific foundations of these topics.
Editing your comment to include a attack on someones character is inflammatory.
This is not about your character. It’s about your beliefs being incompatible with modern medical science. You mod this public health community but have pseudoscientific beliefs which are diametrically opposed to a modern understanding of public health. Attacking your character would be to say you’re doing this out of malice or baselessly accusing you of shilling. I believe you believe this, and I believe that if you believe a Western pattern diet is killing people (it is; this is the main thing we agree on), it shows strong ethical character to try to warn people about it. What’s problematic is that your solution to it is so divorced from science that people who just read comments and nod along because they sound plausible need to be aware of the lens you’re interpreting this study through.
You are bringing in external bias into a discussion of one study, which is what this post is about.
We disagree on diet decisions, but nothing I’ve said in this post has been about my personal choices. You are escalating a grudge you have had historically with me into a unrelated discussion. That is a definitional attack on character.
Please stay on topic, which is the study in the post, if you want to attack my character as human or literate abilities you may do so in a different community, but not here.