Wiki * German blog * Problems? Please contact info at psiram dot com

Main Menu

Überarbeiter Veganismus Artikel mit noch mehr redaktionellen Schwächen

Postings reflect the private opinion of posters and are not official positions of Psiram - Foreneinträge sind private Meinungen der Forenmitglieder und entsprechen nicht unbedingt der Auffassung von Psiram

Begonnen von Max Grassfed, 17. Mai 2020, 08:35:06

« vorheriges - nächstes »


Passt vielleicht am ehesten hier; einen neuen Faden will ich dafür nicht aufmachen.

Interessantes Editorial in JAMA.
Backlash Over Meat Dietary Recommendations Raises Questions About Corporate Ties to Nutrition Scientists

Annals [Annals of Internal Medicine, ein high-impact-Journal] Editor-in-Chief Christine Laine, MD, MPH, saw her inbox flooded with roughly 2000 emails—most bore the same message, apparently generated by a bot—in a half hour. Laine's inbox had to be shut down, she said. Not only was the volume unprecedented in her decade at the helm of the respected journal, the tone of the emails was particularly caustic.

"We've published a lot on firearm injury prevention," Laine said. "The response from the NRA (National Rifle Association) was less vitriolic than the response from the True Health Initiative."
Und das will was heißen, wirklich.

ZitatThe True Health Initiative (THI) is a nonprofit founded and headed by David Katz, MD. The group's website describes its work as "fighting fake facts and combating false doubts to create a world free of preventable diseases, using the time-honored, evidence-based, fundamentals of lifestyle and medicine."

Subsequent news coverage criticized the methodology used in the meat papers and raised the specter that some of the authors had financial ties to the beef industry, representing previously undisclosed conflicts of interest.

But what has for the most part been overlooked is that Katz and THI and many of its council members have numerous industry ties themselves. The difference is that their ties are primarily with companies and organizations that stand to profit if people eat less red meat and a more plant-based diet. Unlike the beef industry, these entities are surrounded by an aura of health and wellness, although that isn't necessarily evidence-based.


Steven Novella, MD, founder and executive editor of the Science-Based Medicine website and a long-time critic of Katz, was more pointed in his assessment of the THI campaign against the meat articles. "It's a total hit job," Novella, a Yale neurologist, told JAMA. "They have a certain number of go-to order to dismiss any scientific findings they don't like." One such strategy, he said, is to lodge accusations of "tenuous" conflicts of interest.
Ein leider zunehmend häufiger zu beobachtendes Phänomen. Die Ideologen, Religiösen, Cranks usw., und vor allem die Profiteure von solchen Gespinsten, bedienen sich wissenschaftlicher "Methodik", genauer: der wissenschaftlichen Terminologie. Ein täuschend aussehendes Mimikry; cargo cult science 2.0.


Update von der DGE:

ZitatDamit stuft die DGE die Beurteilungsgrundlage weiterhin als unzureichend ein und bleibt bei ihrer Position zur veganen Ernährung:

Eine vegane Ernährung in Schwangerschaft und Stillzeit sowie im gesamten Kindes- und Jugendalter wird von der DGE aufgrund des erhöhten Risikos für eine Nährstoff­unterversorgung sowie einen Nährstoffmangel und deren teilweise irreversiblen Konse­quenzen weiterhin nicht empfohlen.