Bacon classified as dangerous as cigarettes by WHO

[Catalyst]

All this discussion about BACON makes me want to go out and buy a few pounds of the thick cut variety !

 

[Laura]

All this discussion about BACON makes me want to go out and buy a few pounds of the thick cut variety !

I've give anything for some thick slices of crispy fried salted bacon.

 

[Glass Onion]

Zoe Harcombe who has a blog where she sometimes dissects various dietary studies has written a very good blogpost detailing the weaknesses of this report. For example the data collection methods, observational studies only showing association not causation and the difference between relative risk and absolute risk. The relative risk used by this kind of studies makes it sound so much more dire than it really is.

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2015/10/world-health-organisation-meat-cancer/


I guess this move by the WHO is another step up in the demonisation of meat-eating that seems to be going on. It comes from different directions, just this morning I read yet another article in my local paper about what climate villains meat-eaters are.

 

[Keyhole]

Ok, the article took longer than expected. Finished now though so I will send it over to you guys via email to SOTT. Feel free to edit anything out that is not appropriate/necessary and there may also be some things that need to be added.

 

[Ca.]

[quote author=Luc]"they go like "oh we analyzed hundreds of studies..." and everyone thinks "wow! That must be true then".

Exactly, maybe those easily convinced should understand that peer research this days does not meet up to the standards it should : See: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
From the article:

‘’Over the past 10 months, I have submitted 304 versions of the wonder drug paper to open-access journals. More than half of the journals accepted the paper, failing to notice its fatal flaws. Beyond that headline result, the data from this sting operation reveal the contours of an emerging Wild West in academic publishing.’’

- That's a total of around 152 fabricated versions wrongly approved. In 10 months. All done by one man.


A few years back the media relentlessly defended 'GMO' with their argument that 2600 research papers have 'proven' their safety. Calling it 'case closed'

One of the major things they left out was that 'GMO' are patented in such a way that you have to get permission by the bio-tech corporations to test their products. Which makes objective research impossible.

Their 'User Agreements'(Publicly available), something you have to sign before buying makes this abutment clear.


I am sure the WHO is just as a bad joke like the FDA (U.S Food and Drug Administration)

Their website is a landmark of contradictions: http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/GEPlants/ucm346030.htm

From the FDA website:


‘’2. Are foods from genetically engineered plants regulated by FDA?

FDA has set up a voluntary consultation process to engage with the developers of genetically engineered plants to help ensure the safety of food from these products.’’


- Just for the record, voluntary consolation does not ensure safety. It just goes on and on. Real science is death when big money interferes.
[/quote]

Good points from RT concerning GMO's, possible contamination of Pathogen's, plus antibiotic's. Thus a trickle down effect of the inconstancy's of the US Pork industry.

RT
Published on Oct 27, 2015
The UN () has finally come out with a verdict on meat, with a report indicating that processed meat like sausages, bacon and ham can cause cancer, with red meat also under suspicion.
Processed Cancer? Bacon, Ham behind deadly disease - WHO report

https://youtu.be/eCmVXdWY8u8

Photos from:
Politics of the Plate
http://politicsoftheplate.com/

 

[Eboard10]

Zoe Harcombe who has a blog where she sometimes dissects various dietary studies has written a very good blogpost detailing the weaknesses of this report. For example the data collection methods, observational studies only showing association not causation and the difference between relative risk and absolute risk. The relative risk used by this kind of studies makes it sound so much more dire than it really is.

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2015/10/world-health-organisation-meat-cancer/


I guess this move by the WHO is another step up in the demonisation of meat-eating that seems to be going on. It comes from different directions, just this morning I read yet another article in my local paper about what climate villains meat-eaters are.

Thanks for sharing Glass Onion. The author does a good job in dissecting the WHO report and exposing it for what it is, a poor study using very bad science.

Ok, the article took longer than expected. Finished now though so I will send it over to you guys via email to SOTT. Feel free to edit anything out that is not appropriate/necessary and there may also be some things that need to be added.

Look forward to reading it! When it's published, I will finally have an article I can use if anyone tells me how wrong I was by pointing to that report with a smirk in their face, as if to say "told you meat was bad".

 

[Keyhole]

Ok, the article took longer than expected. Finished now though so I will send it over to you guys via email to SOTT. Feel free to edit anything out that is not appropriate/necessary and there may also be some things that need to be added.

Look forward to reading it! When it's published, I will finally have an article I can use if anyone tells me how wrong I was by pointing to that report with a smirk in their face, as if to say "told you meat was bad".
[/quote]
Fwiw here is a really detailed article by Nora Gedgaudas that was published on SOTT last night. She provides link to some useful studies and includes in detail more of the biochemistry. Here is the article

 

[Eboard10]

Fwiw here is a really detailed article by Nora Gedgaudas that was published on SOTT last night. She provides link to some useful studies and includes in detail more of the biochemistry. Here is the article

Thanks for sharing Keyhole and yes, Nora's post already provides a detailed and objective rebuttal of the WHO conclusion on red meat.

 

[WIN 52]

Changing my view of bacon from it being not good for optimal health to a realistic view of what is possible when you incorporate it into the diet is just another example of how the world works. This is a moot point as the reality of the situation does not align with the hype, for my situation. Thanks to the forum and willingness to step away from the herd mentality, I now have a new lease on life.

As for the smoking issue, why stop at eating bacon? I need a smoke!

 

[casper]

I love these links:
https://translate.google.hr/translate?sl=hr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=hr&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.volim-meso.hr%2Ftri-zdrava-razloga-jedenje-meso%2F&edit-text=

https://translate.google.hr/translate?sl=hr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=hr&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.volim-meso.hr%2Fcrveno-meso-prehrambeni-izvor-zeljeza%2F&edit-text=

https://translate.google.hr/translate?sl=hr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=hr&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.volim-meso.hr%2Fvaznost-crvenog-mesa-u-dohrani-dojencadi%2F&edit-text=

I wish all a good appetite, special recipes are also there ;D

 

[Keyhole]

Ok, the article took longer than expected. Finished now though so I will send it over to you guys via email to SOTT. Feel free to edit anything out that is not appropriate/necessary and there may also be some things that need to be added.

Look forward to reading it! When it's published, I will finally have an article I can use if anyone tells me how wrong I was by pointing to that report with a smirk in their face, as if to say "told you meat was bad".

Eboard10, the article was recently published here

 

[Ca.]

I love these links:
https://translate.google.hr/translate?sl=hr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=hr&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.volim-meso.hr%2Ftri-zdrava-razloga-jedenje-meso%2F&edit-text=

https://translate.google.hr/translate?sl=hr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=hr&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.volim-meso.hr%2Fcrveno-meso-prehrambeni-izvor-zeljeza%2F&edit-text=

https://translate.google.hr/translate?sl=hr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=hr&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.volim-meso.hr%2Fvaznost-crvenog-mesa-u-dohrani-dojencadi%2F&edit-text=

I wish all a good appetite, special recipes are also there ;D

Make mine a Porterhouse. The more fat the merrier. And Thanks for the links.

PS. The Sott article by Overton was well done. I also learned a thing or 2 to-boot. :)

 

[dugdeep]

Howdy all! Just wanted to let you know that today we'll be discussing the latest WHO report on meat on the Health and Wellness Show. We're going to tear it to shreds!

Have a listen: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,39923.0.html

 

[casper]

An interesting article came out in response to the danger of consuming red meat, link:

https://translate.google.hr/translate?sl=hr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=hr&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpunkufer.dnevnik.hr%2Fclanak%2F10-najsmrtonosnijih-namirnica-na-svijetu---359585.html&edit-text=

 

[SummerLite]

Twenty or more years ago, the news was nitrates, used as a preservative, in meats are carcinogenic and I haven't eaten meat/bacon with nitrates since. When I heard this newest report being blasted over the media, I didn't hear anything about nitrates which I've believed all this time is the problem. I immediately questioned, why no mention of the nitrates and thought it disinfo for that reason.

I eat bacon for breakfast most mornings although I've gotten tired of it lately and made a batch of Maria Emmericks breakfast chili a few days ago. I'm a bit concerned about the celery salt in nitrous free bacon. I've also heard, don't know where, the celery salt is another, possible carcinogen. "Hear say" is what I'm passing along here....sorry. But this question of celery salt has been on my mind for awhile.

I have only skimmed this thread quickly for any remarks on the nitrates and not finding any decided to comment. Its a very informative thread and will take the time to read more later. MY apologies if this has been mentioned and I've missed it.