pull down to refresh

This type of pro-plant/anti-meat propaganda, disguised as a study, is coming out steadily, day by day, drip by drip, onto our impressionable brains. No wonder we believe this crap. I used to believe it myself.
Thank goodness I understand more now, about the incentives these people have, how they're paid, and how the studies are completely worthless.
Feel free to read it. Here's a couple additional points they won't mention:
  • Any nutritional study coming from Harvard (like this one) is highly suspect. They are openly very anti meat 1.
  • Most nutritional "studies" based on epidemiology - i.e. surveying people about what they eat - are worthless. Look at what the article says the study is based on. "Every four years, participants reported how often they ate more than 130 different foods". Seriously? People believe that's accurate? 2.
  • They put people consuming "sugary beverages" and "diets higher in trans fats" (both of which indicate a lot of highly processed food) into the same bucket with people consuming more meat! How is that possibly neutral?
Here's some of my carnivore-oriented posts. I list them every time I write a post like this, because I'm pissed off that I wasted so many years believing the pro-plant nonsense.

Footnotes

  1. From https://unsettledscience.substack.com/p/harvard-has-been-anti-meat-for-30 (below is an excerpt from the article if you can't access it) Harvard Has Been Anti-Meat for 30+ Years—Why? Red meat is bad for health. We hear this from virtually all our nutrition authorities, and so, it must be true. Far less well known is the fact that this fear of eating red meat can mainly be traced back to a single person, Harvard’s Walter C. Willett, the first and most prominent anti-meat champion in academia. Indeed, in 1990, the year before he started his 25-year reign (1991-2017) as head of the nutrition department at the highly influential Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (HSPH), Willett said it’s “quite possible” that “no red meat” was the optimal amount to eat.1 His more recent work has involved leading an international effort for a near-meatless diet for all people, globally. Yet this passion has never had a foundation in solid evidence. Rather, it has been based in a mixture of personal ambition, bad science, financial interests and bias. Willett’s unswerving advocacy for vegetarianism helps provide some context for his latest paper (paywalled), claiming that red and processed meat are “strongly associated” with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. As the accompanying Harvard press release explained, “participants who ate the most red meat had a 62% higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared to those who ate the least.” The findings spurred at least a hundred headlines worldwide, including this one in The NY Times and another in the Washington Post (syndicated from Bloomberg): “Drop that Hot Dog if You Value Your Health.” https://unsettledscience.substack.com/p/harvard-has-been-anti-meat-for-30
  2. For some more info about these types of studies see https://www.diagnosisdiet.com/full-article/epidemiological-studies. Her book "Change Your Diet, Change Your Mind" is great too - about how a low-carb, keto, or carnivore diet can heal mental disorders such as depression, bipolar, etc.
How easy would a healthy happy life be if we weren’t manipulated and lied to about everything
reply