Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Dr Greger and its undisclosed vegan agenda using cherry picked or wrongly interpreted studies to push it.



Would you consider adding to the discussion by presenting meta-studies showing meat is not carcinogenic?


That's not how things work. A study can only prove something was not carcinogenic during the study. It cannot prove it's not carcinogenic [period]. The other way around works: if a study shows something was carcinogenic during the study, it proved it's carcinogenic [period]. All of this assumes properly conducted studies.

On the other hand studies proved UV rays are carcinogenic [0]. Assuming knowing meat is carcinogenic turns you into a vegetarian let me know how you'd approach getting out of the house from now on.

[0] https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposu...


That's quite the comparison, considering one of those is practically impossible to do and would have a lot of negative consequences in other areas.

Whereas the other is doable (as evidenced by the existence of vegans) AND has a lot of other positive consequences (environmental, moral).

Most definitions of veganism include something like "reduce suffering as far as possible and practicable". It's not absolute.

Of course, another objection to your comparison is that it suggests if we cannot remove ALL bad things, we ought not to do anything.


I replied to a comment asking to "prove a negative". Either due to poor understanding of how it works or to skew the answer in their favor.

But to the point, you could wear sunscreen. But you consider that to be too much of a hassle even when risking cancer.

And no, that's not what my comparison was suggesting. What I tried to say clearly (not just suggest) is that if you live and die by studies than don't cherry pick. Don't ask for studies only when it suits you and it supports your point of view.

In the end it's mostly personal preference. No study said "moderate meat consumption will cause cancer" yet people are willing to skew the conclusions to better justify a personal choice. Just give up meat if you feel like it and use the study as additional justification if needed. Don't go waving studies to justify your choice but put them aside when they don't.


It doesn't matter which cherry you pick, they all lead to the same conclusion: eating too many animals and not enough plants causes our most common diseases (obesity, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, stroke). Dr. Greger's agenda is not about the animals, it is about the people.


> eating too many animals and not enough plants causes our most common diseases (obesity, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, stroke)

Do you actually believe that eating "too many animals and not enough plants" is the cause of diabetes (I assume you're referring to Type II)?


I think that is exactly the point Dr Greger makes. Specifically not enough unprocessed plant foods.

(https://nutritionfacts.org/video/what-causes-diabetes/). Click on the "sources" section to get the sources cited.


Yes, I do believe that, and yes Type II (not Type 1). According to Dr. Greger there is mounting evidence that fat is the cause, and that problems processing carbs is the symptom. Here are his videos with many studies cited: https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/diabetes/. Or Google type 2 diabetes and vegans. Here is the first thing I found: https://veganhealth.org/type-2-diabetes-in-vegans/. I'll take a 68% lower rate as some evidence. Vegans, by the way, are people who eat "too many plants and not enough animals". It helps with certain diseases.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: