[hfsp]

Let's follow the money.

Said "scientific study" is funded by Wellcome. An arm of WHO, unelected crisis manufacturer supreme. On wellcome's site:

"Reducing meat intake, particularly in the USA where meat consumption is highest, should be a global priority."

Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome.

[La1n]

>This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust, Our Planet Our Health (Livestock, Environment and People - LEAP) [grant number 205212/Z/16/Z]; Cancer Research UK [grant numbers C8211/A19170 and C8211/A29017]; and the UK Medical Research Council [grant number MR/M012190/1]. AP-C is supported by a Cancer Research UK Population Research Fellowship [grant number C60192/A28516] and by the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF UK), as part of the WCRF International grant programme [grant number 2019/1953].

And cancer research. But you didn't bring that up.

edit: Also not "An arm of WHO", they partner with them cause priorities (public health) are aligned.

[boldslogan]

Can you link to the part of Wellcome being against meat consumption? They look like a charity about vaccination or such?

I couldn't find anything here about meat consumption:

https://wellcome.org/about-us

[nathanasmith]

The page on the site with the specific quote by GP is here: https://wellcome.org/grant-funding/people-and-projects/grant...

You may already realize this but if you type

site:wellcome.org "Reducing meat intake, particularly in the USA where meat consumption is highest, should be a global priority."

into Google you'll find it.

[boldslogan]

thanks, didn't know that.

[qayxc]

I don't get the unhealthy obsession with "unelected" in some people.

A proper -mediocracy- meritocracy (i.e. it's actual skills and qualification that counts) is preferable over any kind of popularity contest. That's not to say the WHO in particular works by this standard, I just find it very irritating if people insist on every position or institution - especially very specialised ones - being subject to elections.

That just doesn't make sense and can have horrifying consequences (see [1] for an example). There are positions (in my example: medical examiners), that simply cannot be adequately filled by laypeople and amateurs. That's not how a complex society works. It's not the middle ages anymore and most professions and many official positions require training, experience, and qualifications.

That's why I don't get the obsession with everyone needing to be "elected" (and by that I assume you mean by the general public, because WHO positions in particular are in fact awarded by elections).

[1] https://youtu.be/hnoMsftQPY8?t=277

[GongOfFour]

> A proper mediocracy

While I think mediocracy is more accurate, I think you meant "meritocracy".

[qayxc]

Indeed I did - thanks for the correction!