|
|
|
|
|
|
by FoodWThrow
1053 days ago
|
|
|
Meaningless. Anything that doesn't control for the amount of contamination that the ingredients has is meaningless. Are the participants eating meat? Red meat? Processed meat? Cured meat? We already know there's a connection with colon cancer and sodium nitrate, does the study account for that? Or just lumps everything into red meat category? What about heavy metals like lead and cadmium that we keep finding in cocoa and coffee? What about glyphosate that is found in more than 80% of the urine samples drawn from US, children included? Then we go outside US, and enter the realm of antibiotics... the list is effectively endless. Using epidemiology to find correlation is absolutely meaningless if you cannot control for contaminants/adulteration. At best, the result is mildly harmless. At worst, it is drawing the wrong conclusion that we actually know a damn thing about what we eat -- we don't. |
|
|
At that level of detail I'm starting to think anything other than forcing 2000 identical twins in a closed and sterile environment to experiment with total control is mostly bs.
You just cannot control for all the variables otherwise