| > Sorry, but this article is junk science, at best. Au contraire it exposes the junk sciences (including epidemiology to establish causation) used by EAT-Lancet to further their agenda. > Who is this curious voice [...] From the author's biography. Sounds solid. Instead of fervently trying to discredit the author, and then proceed to name-drop to buttress your borrowed beliefs, try to focus on what she actually says. > epidemiological science [...] virtually the entire scientific field [... name-dropping snipped ...] Nutrition epidemiology studies are not scientific experiments; they are wildly inaccurate, questionnaire-based guesses (hypotheses) about the possible connections between foods and diseases. This approach has been widely criticized as scientifically invalid [see here(1) and here(2)], yet continues to be used by influential researchers at prestigious institutions. Even if you think epidemiological methods are sound, at best they can only generate hypotheses that then need to be tested in clinical trials. Instead, these hypotheses are often prematurely trumpeted to the public as implicit fact in the form of media headlines, dietary guidelines, and well-placed commission reports like this one. Tragically, more than 80%(3) of these guesses are later proved wrong in clinical trials. With a failure rate this high, nutrition epidemiologists would be better off flipping a coin to decide which foods cause human disease. (1) https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2018.00105...
(2) https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2698337
(3) https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1740-... |