pull down to refresh

No one is being lied to. Unless of course you consider the fact that everone is being lied to all the time, constantly.
Being subjected to consumer health advice is like sitting in the middle of a tennis court. You are served a lie from the media who have political leaning in one direction whose political donors represent every kind of industry that includes the largest conglomerates that trade. Then you are served another lie from their opponents through the debunking of studies, which is irrelevant in many ways, is taken out of context and become distorted through media op-eds, and again the debunking of the debunked studies bounces back.
Could we not all agree that the notion of attempting to forcibly throw bunk science down each other's throats is not very convincing nor helpful. Perhaps then we could get back to actually achnowledging the limitations of overly-specialized scientific analysis and instead either make our own minds up with our own objective realities, subjective needs and commonsense.
The article makes a good argument that New York Post and similar outlets lied about this specific study outcomes.
reply
Yeah I get that. I think there is merit there, but I think the effect such an article has is to promote the safety and nutritional value of brands that use meat-substitute, plant-based proteins, like beyond-meat (among many others.) It may well be that it is largely harmless. But I think the net effect of a 'double-debunking volley', is that consumers read it, and then ape into diets full of branded cardboard boxed foods, and it obscures the premise of whether or not such a diet is helpful. There's profit and market-share to win back, that's what I read.
I'm not sure that the study which it critisized was particulrly aimed at these products exclusively. More inclusively as ultra-processed foods take many shapes and forms.
reply
Consider the source: vox is one sided
reply