I think it's a mistake to assume that changes in a public-health organization's guidance is evidence of something wrong. This is a new disease, with unusual characteristics. As new evidence comes in, scientists SHOULD change their thinking, and reflect that in their public statements. If they didn't, it would be propaganda, not science.
Very well said. Every time I hear this 'they can't make up their minds' complaint I wonder if those who are complaining also complain because doctors used to recommend bloodletting for high blood pressure and now they want you to take a pill for it instead.
I can understand not assuming but to not question the situation is very naive. Once you start the verify part of “trust but verify” WHO as it functions today is extraordinarily unreliable and political in nature.
Too damn bad. Grilled meat is full of heterocyclic amines that make adducts on DNA. Bad juju. Too damn bad if you don't like it. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. And if you don't like the messengers of bad news, well that's second level stupid right there.
The science is not settled. You don’t lik it that’s just tough.
The hell it isn't. Detecting those compounds in grilled meat is high school level chemistry. The first level of stupid is not believing a fact just because you don't like it.
Odds are our ancestors started out cooking grains and vegetables over an open flame. It's thought that the increased nutrients from previously inedible foods allowed our brains to grow large, which later allowed the social interactions that proved effective at hunting down food prey.
They are there ... sure. How much risk they pose is not so much an absolute. Well at least according to the guy I know that does early drug discovery research for oncology meds. I had him read your post. He found it amusing. He also took the time to explain this to me but frankly it’s so far outside of my wheel house I’ll look dumb even trying to repeat what he told me. But to paraphrase...
This has links back to the original research:
Show the evidence that it isn't settled.
Instead of simply saying "he's wrong", try giving some evidence. I've done, and still do work with people who do, early drug discovery. Depending on what s/he does, they may not have the expertise to answer this question well. Early drug discovery covers a wide range of disciplines including synthetic/medical chemistry, molecular modeling and structure-activity relationships, biochemistry, analytical chemistry, and others.
Oh I get thread drift. I cause a lot of it
What if, I, as an "early drug discovery guy", had a different point of view? Like I said, there are a lot of disciplines in early drug discovery. Hematology relates to blood, as you know, @steingar was discussing the biochemistry of these amines. Not all oncologists work at that level of cause/effect, many of them are looking to stop the growth of tumors after they started.
Perhaps it's comments like this that may cause someone to talk down to you? I certainly didn't assume you were dumb. I don't know much about you, and even less of your knowledge of drug discovery. Your statement didn't leave me with any impression of what that person does in early drug discovery, and I still have no information to be convinced that person knows biochemistry.
There have been a few times Steingar and I had a difference of opinion, and he certainly didn't call me stupid. Perhaps try a different approach?
Agreed, but the politics come in when people start bringing in their own "facts" as well as their opinions.
And that's how we have a good discussion, not telling someone "I know someone who does work that may, or may not be related to the topic, and he laughed"
I’m about as polar opposite to a snowflake as possible.I have called no one stupid. What I said was ignoring facts because you don't agree with them is the first level of stupid. Getting mad at the messenger of uncomfortable facts is the second level of stupid. There are plenty more.
If you're such a snowflake that you find this utterly insulting, I have something for you to fill out:
Which proves that one can eat meat for around 30 years (the time to reach child bearing age + the time to raise offspring to child bearing age) without it killing them. I'm a fan of meat and I'm definitely not saying you can't go longer without it hurting you, but pointing out what people have done for thousands of years only proves that you can do it and live at least long enough to raise your young before it kills you. You can work with asbestos every day and still live long enough to raise your young but that doesn't mean I'd want to try it.
Which is nothing more than a very lame way to call someone stupid without owning up to it. If you're going to insult someone, don't beat around the bush about it, just insult them.
Well there is also the whole thing that the WHO research and other supporting evidence was addressing consumption of processed meats and specifically processed meats high in nitrates. Further it was not just eating some occasionally but rather a high rate of consumption over a long period of time.
I am no math expert, but that seems like finding a model to meet preconceived concepts.