Nutritional McCarthyism: Red Meat To Blame for Death, Global Warming, Tsunamis, Mine Collapses, and Terrorist Attacks

by Karen De Coster

Red meat is probably the cause behind?the Congo train derailment and the Yangtze River dolphin extinction, too.

The media, this week, ran the following headlines:

CNN. "Study: Too Much Red Meat May Shorten Lifespan."

LA Times. "Red Meat: What Makes It Unhealthy."

AllVoices.com. "Harvard Study Concludes Red Meat Reduces Average Life."

NY Daily News. "Red meat boosts risk of dying young: study; Just one portion of processed meat boosts death risk by 20%."

New York Times. "Risks: More Red Meat, More Mortality."

And the most comical headline of them all was from Slate: "Study: All Red Meat Linked to Premature Death."

This was undoubtedly the most popular headline of the week for the sound bite lovin', I-read-the-headline-and-that's-all-that-matters crowd. To say that the mainstream media and the blogosphere discovered a new level of idiocy is putting it much too lightly.?There were two types of people hitting the "publish" button on their blogs just a wee bit too prematurely over these headlines - (1) The vegans/vegetarians who may actually know a little something about eating good food, and have a passion for great health, yet are too motivated - perhaps politically - too see through the 40-year facade of the federal dietary sham, and (2) Bloggers who know absolutely nothing about health and wellness, let alone nutrition, and couldn't care less, except they carry a schizophrenic vendetta against people who are passionate about health and wellness and carry the torch for the paleo-primal lifestyle (you know, us nuts who advocate for such atrocities as real food, voluntary trade that is free from the force of the government's criminal agencies, and food freedom).

Many folks sent me the link and asked, "When are you going to blog on this?" For starters, I didn't have the time. But then again, I waited, because I knew the ancestral health community would light up the switchboard of ignorance with a spark of sagacity that would render the media blitz and bozo blogosphere impotent, like farts in the wind. And they didn't disappoint.

This was an observational study, where participants filled out food frequency questionnaires (here is a link to the questionnaire) every four years and lifestyle and medical data questionnaires every two years. Certainly, people are very honest and have a tremendous capacity for remembering what they ate two days ago, let alone a year ago.?First,?there is Robb Wolf, who referred to the red meat scaremongering as "nutritional McCarthyism."?Gary Taubes also commented?on the horrendous science behind the study:

The problem with observational studies like those run by Willett and his colleagues is that they do none of this. That's why it's so frustrating. The hard part of science is left out ?and they skip straight to the endpoint, insisting that their interpretation of the association is the correct one and we should all change our diets accordingly.

In these observational studies, the epidemiologists?establish a cohort of subjects to follow (tens of thousands of nurses and physicians, in this case) and then ask them about what they eat. The fact that they use questionnaires?that are notoriously fallible is almost irrelevant here because the rest of the science is so flawed. Then they follow the subjects for decades --?28 years in this case. Now they have a database of diseases, deaths and foods consumed, and they can draw associations between what these people were eating and the diseases and deaths.

The end result is an association. In the latest report, eating a lot of red meat and processed meat is?associated?with premature death and increased risk of chronic disease. That's what they observed in the cohorts -- the observation.

...An association by itself contains no causal information. There are an infinite number of associations that are not causally related for every association that is, so the fact of the association itself doesn't tell us much.

Taubes calls these observational studies "the equivalent of conventional wisdom-confirmation machines." And then there is Denise Minger, guest writing for Mark Sisson's blog,?who put the entire drama to rest with her relentless pursuit of science?in the midst of a media blitz touting what she calls "ultimately wobbly, imperfect, and tragically inconclusive observational data."?Denise notes that this was a "garden-variety observational study, not an actual experiment where people change something specific they're doing and thus make it possible to determine cause and effect." Yet the researchers drew absolute conclusions from their disturbingly unscientific study.?Says Denise:

The lead researcher Frank Hu?claimed the study?"provides clear evidence that regular consumption of red meat, especially processed meat, contributes substantially to premature death," despite the fact that the study is innately incapable of providing such evidence. It's as if someone?pulled a Campbell?on us. Only an actual experiment,?with controls and manipulated variables, could start confirming causation.

There are a couple of other thrashings worth mentioning, and?the most notable of those is from Zoe Harcombe. She does a deep dive on the data and points out seven fatal flaws of the study, with one of them being the following:

As I always consider conflict of interest, it would be remiss of me to end without noting that one of the authors (if not more) is known to be vegetarian and speaks at vegetarian conferences[ii] and the invited 'peer' review of the article has been done by none other than the man who claims the credit for having turned ex-President Clinton into a vegan -- Dean Ornish.[iii]

The?Caveman Doctor also published a nice piece?on how the study was fraught with error and bias.

Latest Health
- Tom Woods Interviews Gary Taubes on Red Meat Scare Study
- Junk Science: "Red meat is blamed for one in 10 early deaths"
- Tom Woods: How Did I Lose the Weight?
- Why We Get Fat: And What To Do About It
- CrossFit - Gary Taubes: Why We Get Fat (Condensed)
- Gary Taubes about why we get fat
- Policing the Porn Business
- Embryonic Stem Cell Breakthrough Reverses Parkinson Disease In Primates

Well, if they ban all the red meat out there, I guess I'll have to eat the green meats then. That's even better than the red stuff, or so the English tell me. If I were you, I'd eat less red meat!

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill

View the original article here

Armed Troops Burn Down Homes, Kill Children To Evict Ugandans In Name Of Global Warming

by Paul Joseph Watson

Armed troops acting on behalf of a British carbon trading company backed by the World Bank burned houses to the ground and killed children to evict Ugandans from their homes in the name of seizing land to protect against ?global warming,? a shocking illustration of how the climate change con is a barbarian form of neo-colonialism.

The evictions were ordered by New Forests Company, an outfit that seizes land in Africa to grow trees then sells the ?carbon credits? on to transnational corporations. The company is backed by the World Bank and HSBC. Its Board of Directors includes HSBC Managing Director Sajjad Sabur, as well as other former Goldman Sachs investment bankers.

The company claims residents of Kicucula left in a "peaceful" and "voluntary" manner, and yet the people tell a story of terror and bloodshed.

Villagers told of how armed ?security forces? stormed their village and torched houses, burning an eight-year-child to death as they threatened to murder anyone who resisted while beating others.

"We were in church," recalled Jean-Marie Tushabe, 26, a father of two. "I heard bullets being shot into the air."

"Cars were coming with police," Mr. Tushabe said, sitting among the ruins of his old home. "They headed straight to the houses. They took our plates, cups, mattresses, bed, pillows. Then we saw them getting a matchbox out of their pockets."

?But in this case, the government and the company said the settlers were illegal and evicted for a good cause: to protect the environment and help fight global warming,? reports the New York Times.

An Oxfam report documents how the British outfit has worked with the Ugandan government to forcibly expel over 20,000 people from their homes using terror and violence as part of a lucrative scramble for arable land that can be used to satisfy the multi-billion dollar carbon trading ponzi scheme, which is worth $1.8 million a year to the company.

?I no longer own any land. It?s impossible to feed my children -- they have suffered so much. Some days all they eat is porridge from maize flour. When people can?t eat well their bodies become weak -- there have been lots of cases of malaria and diarrhoea. Some days we don?t eat anything at all,? said former farmer Francis Longoli, whose land was stolen by New Forests.

As we have previously documented, the manufactured threat of man-made global warming is being used as a tool of neo-colonialism in the third world, not only through the seizure of land and infrastructure, thereby preventing poor nations from using their resources to develop, but by literally starving poverty-stricken people to death.

Climate change alarmism and implementation of global warming policies is a crime of the highest nature, because it is already having a genocidal impact in countries like Haiti, where the doubling of food prices is resulting in a substantial increase in starvation, poverty and death, with the population being forced to live on mud pies.

As a National Geographic Report confirmed, "With food prices rising, Haiti's poorest can't afford even a daily plate of rice, and some must take desperate measures to fill their bellies," by "eating mud," partly as a consequence of "increasing global demand for biofuels."

In April 2008, World Bank President Robert Zoellick admitted that biofuels were a "significant contributor" to soaring food prices that have led to poor people dying from starvation as a result of biofuels dominating land that would normally be used to harvest food.

Even man-made global warming advocate George Monbiot admits that promotion of biofuels "is causing starvation in the poor world," particularly in Swaziland, where the decision to allocate several thousand hectares of farmland to ethanol production despite the country being in the grip of a famine was labeled "a crime against humanity" by Jean Ziegler, the UN's special rapporteur.

But it's not just biofuels, a product of global warming alarmism, that are unleashing a genocide against black people in poorer countries, it's the whole anti-development mantra embraced by climate change activists that is being enforced by supranational organizations like the World Bank and the IMF in the name of reducing carbon dioxide, the evil life-giving gas that plants breathe and humans exhale.

Indeed, poorer countries rejected the 2009 Copenhagen climate agreement precisely because it discriminated against third world nations.

In addition, the Obama administration, firmly supported by Al Gore, last year ordered the World Bank to keep "developing" countries underdeveloped by blocking them from building coal-fired power plants, ensuring that poorer countries remain in poverty as a result of energy demands not being met.

By preventing poor nations from becoming self-sufficient in blocking them from producing their own energy, the Obama administration is ensuring that millions more will die from starvation and lack of access to hospitals and medical treatment.

While ignorant environmentalist leftists preach all day about the effects of global warming having the most impact on poorer countries, it is in fact the poorer countries and their people who are suffering most from global warming alarmism, and predators like the banker-backed New Forests Company.

The seizure of arable land in the name of ?global warming? is set to become big business, which is why the United Nations recently announced it is preparing to roll out an army of green helmeted ?climate peacekeepers? to intervene in poorer countries to protect ?shrinking resources?.

Transnational corporations, in league with western governments and offshore banks, have seized upon the climate change scam to carry out genocidal policies and land grabs in the pursuit of selling carbon credits to other transnational corporations who then merely pass on the cost to the consumer.
__
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.

View the original article here