I agree with you. Meta analyses should be ignored in favor of trusting the government, which cares about you, which is why mRNA shots were developed and why these foods are a staple of the American diet.
Well bless your heart hun, you got the “don’t trust the government” part down but let’s work on your understanding of medical and nutrition research and statistics. Meta analysis show only correlation, they cannot show causation. Humans are complex and there is more than one variable. Also, you will only find what you measure. So a meta analysis can show whatever you want it to show- there will be meta analysis that show the clot shot is safe and that seed oils are healthy. Meta analysis is a waste of taxpayer money and research resources.
Except that’s not true. A double blind placebo or randomized controlled trial is (if the books are not being cooked) far superior to a meta-analysis. Meta-analysis gives you absolutely no cause of anything. Correlation is not causation. So yeah, there is a reason to be against pointless analysis that is correlation mistaken by midwits for causation.
Meta-analysis is just a weighted “analysis” of multiple studies on a topic including lots or placebo trials.
Also “Controlled” trials can be gamed and are often put forth by biased actors. You have to actually have good science. All experimental methods have their merits and limitations.
When you list bacon, do you mean the Soy/lab bacon substitute!? What about bacon from (local farms) from a small town butcher that has no nitrates or nitrates in it? Is fresh bacon like this harmful?....Thanks for clarifying this for me!
Thanks so much for your reply!......one less worry/concern in a world environment that is hell bent to kill as many people as possible.... God help us all!......Actually the tendrils run so deep it will likely take a miracle to stop it all🎯💜🙏
Totally agree! It did say "processed" which usually means adding preservatives- oh sure, your dead body underground wont break down/preserved for years!
I'm always a bit irritated by the term "processed meat". Obviously, a steak is not, a can of Vienna sausages is. But it seems there are degrees. Even supermarket bacon seems less tainted than a slim-jim by processing. A gram of sugar or HFCS is clear, same with trans-fats (although they can vary). Processed meat seems more difficult to assess. Not so much defining whether processed or not, but the degree of processing, and how much that matters. If you take a roast and run it through the grinder, that's processing. But it's the same pure meat. More clarity needed IMO.
Sometimes there's just too much to say in one article... if you're reading these articles and in this headspace (most are NOT) you are already hopefully aware of these differences.
Not only that, the information at the granular level I'd like is either not available, or sketchy. I'm skeptical of studies, seems you can find one that says anything. Still, they aren't all worthless, and they indicate it's better to eat a steak than a hot dog. That's something. It's best to eat food that doesn't even have a label stating the ingredients IMO.
In 1988, I wound up with a nasty bulbous growth with spikes coming out of it on my chest above my right breast...from honey. I learned that excess carbs created it from all the herb teas i was drinking daily...putting honey in them. I checked to see what I had done to cause it and noted that I was using quite a bit of honey. I stopped the honey and in less than 3 months the tumor disappeared; and only a small pink spot was left...and eventually it disappeared. Twelve years earlier, I developed a rapidly growing vaginal tumor which two doctors told me needed to be removed immediately, or I would be given 'no guarantees.' I opted to pray and a book came into my hands, which gave me an answer. I t was on raw fruit and vegetables by Dr. Norman W. Walker. I stopped using the dairy a nutritionist had recommended a few months earlier...and it disappeared in just over two months. So, when I got the second tumor, I simply checked to see what I was eating that caused it
The second was excess carb in the honey... and the first was caused by excess protein & fat in the dairy. I learned from personal experiences NOTHING GROWS WITHOUT A FUEL. Remove the fuel and food-created tumors will vanish. There are other tumors that are being caused by radiation from cell phones right in the spot, where the phone is held next to the ear. Children are very vulnerable to radiation... and parents should not let them play with cellphones. This cellphone generation is being exposed to massive radiation and it is not safe.
Nick, you have to put these measures in non technical terms, like one bite of a burger or half a can of soda. Your readers don’t want scientific measurements. Once I hit your tech terms, my eyes glaze over and I archive the post anf go on to something else. You can do better. You are not writing for your teachers any more. Your audience is largely nontechnical. Treat them with respect. Please.
As for "sugar-sweetened" beverages -- was the study referring to high fructose corn syrup or cane sugar or GMO beet sugar? Most bottled beverages are sweetened with HFCS, which, according to numerous studies, greatly increases the risk of diabetes and other conditions. Not saying sugar is a health food, but HFCS is a dangerous additive and belongs in a different category.
I think these methods are the end of all scientific literature, now to "produce work" millions of articles are published on scientific sites, no one is able to analyze in detail the errors or wrong hypotheses and unmask any camouflage manipulations of data incorrect methods and no one presents us for each work a sufficient self-criticism or the sensitivity of the methods used with respect to any errors or alternative methods that could be more correct if then someone really has something to say that is very different from the dominant trend you are censored. The studies do not have a sufficiently public critical review in which all science is laid bare every method every hypothesis and every conclusion, there is no discussion as if we were explaining what was wrong, but we tend to a self-referential specialist language.
It's actually nutritionally impossible for even processed meat to cause diabetes.
Nicolas has only one thing left to learn about "nutritional studies": they're all associative guesswork - which is anything but scientific.
That's when the snake oil salesmen come out like this study criticizing meat.
We've been lied to so long about fat and meat being detrimental in our diet that we've forgotten our direct ancestors have been eating it for 5 millions years and we wouldn't be here today without it being the majority in our diet.
Most diseases today are the result of plant agriculture from both the diet and chemicals involved.
In her 'Why aren’t Italians as obese as Americans? It’s not really what they eat.' Tamar Haspel noted that "Italians do, however, eat much less meat. Americans eat 67 percent more."
There's the answer. All meat contains arachidonic acid. In 2019 Steve Blechman wrote, "The Mediterranean diet is low in arachidonic acid and rich in healthy fats such as monounsaturated fats found in extra-virgin olive oil (EVOO), nuts and omega-3 fatty acids from fish, which has been shown to lower the risk of inflammation, heart disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity, and other degenerative diseases." https://advancedmolecularlabs.com/blogs/news/new-red-meat-study-controversy
Norwegian animal science researchers expressed concern about the arachidonic acid content of meat more than a decade ago. "Chicken meat with reduced concentration of arachidonic acid (AA) and reduced ratio between omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids has potential health benefits because a reduction in AA intake dampens prostanoid signaling, and the proportion between omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids is too high in our diet." https://lipidworld.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-511X-9-37
In a 2021 article, Australian zoologist Anthony Hulbert wrote, "As a final comment, I note that we are only beginning to understand the implications of the balance between omega-3 and omega-6 fats in the human diet. Although most animals have a relatively constant diet, we humans are especially diverse (both between individuals and over time) in the types of food we consume. Over the last half-century, the modern human food chain has emphasised omega-6 and diminished omega-3 intake, largely because of: (i) a shift from animal fats to vegetable oils, (ii) an increase in grain-fed meat and dairy, and (iii) a decline in full-fat dairy products from grass-fed livestock (an important source of omega-3). In the opinion of the current author and others, these diet trends are likely to be responsible for the increased incidence of obesity and other modern epidemics of chronic disease, but that is a story for another time." https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/224/8/jeb232538/256572/The-under-appreciated-fats-of-life-the-two-types
"An excessive intake of arachidonic acid eventually loads adipose tissue with arachidonic acid. It is a gradual process. Unfortunately, influential scientists have concluded, on the basis of short-term (12-week) arachidonic acid supplementation studies, that the arachidonic acid content of the food supply is not an issue. For example, in a 2007 article Philip Calder wrote, "Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind that, just because there is little biological impact of an increase in arachidonic acid intake or status, there may still be significant benefit from a decrease in its intake or status." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17705889/
Lastly, it is important to understand that linoleic acid molecules can displace arachdonic from their positions in cell membranes. So, high intakes of linoleic acid tend to reduce inflammation and improve insulin sensitivity which makes linoleic acid appear to be healthful. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/06/250621103446.htm
For more on the matter, do some 'adipose tissue arachidonic acid' web searches in conjunction with most any mental or physical malady that comes to mind. Examples: adipose tissue arachidonic acid metabolic syndrome, adipose tissue arachidonic acid depression, adipose tissue arachidonic acid breast cancer, adipose tissue arachidonic acid heart disease.
Thank you Nicolas. I do not drink SSB’s and rarely consume Trans fats but I get my share of sugar in other things and I do enjoy processed meats if given a chance.
Let’s ignore the fact that millions owe their lives to processed foods. People used to die from acute food poisoning- gastroenteritis and hunger. Now, in the USA obesity is the problem. We are lucky to live in prosperous times in the land of milk and honey.
A meta analysis is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.
I agree with you. Meta analyses should be ignored in favor of trusting the government, which cares about you, which is why mRNA shots were developed and why these foods are a staple of the American diet.
Well bless your heart hun, you got the “don’t trust the government” part down but let’s work on your understanding of medical and nutrition research and statistics. Meta analysis show only correlation, they cannot show causation. Humans are complex and there is more than one variable. Also, you will only find what you measure. So a meta analysis can show whatever you want it to show- there will be meta analysis that show the clot shot is safe and that seed oils are healthy. Meta analysis is a waste of taxpayer money and research resources.
You could say the same thing about all research in general. Really nothing holy or taboo about a meta analysis. No reason to be biased for or against.
Except that’s not true. A double blind placebo or randomized controlled trial is (if the books are not being cooked) far superior to a meta-analysis. Meta-analysis gives you absolutely no cause of anything. Correlation is not causation. So yeah, there is a reason to be against pointless analysis that is correlation mistaken by midwits for causation.
Meta-analysis is just a weighted “analysis” of multiple studies on a topic including lots or placebo trials.
Also “Controlled” trials can be gamed and are often put forth by biased actors. You have to actually have good science. All experimental methods have their merits and limitations.
Beagles on a Treadmill tend toward obesity
This beagle intends to run a hundred miles and has a BMI of 19. Why is everyone fat now? Trusting that government food pyramid? 😅
Scammers gonna scam, grifters gonna grift, and liars gonna lie.
When you list bacon, do you mean the Soy/lab bacon substitute!? What about bacon from (local farms) from a small town butcher that has no nitrates or nitrates in it? Is fresh bacon like this harmful?....Thanks for clarifying this for me!
Fresh, uncured bacon from a local butcher without chemical preservatives is not classified the same way in these studies and is probably not harmful.
Except for all the mRNA vaccines they’ve been giving pigs since at least 2018!!!????!!!!!
That's belly slices. Bacon is cured.
Thanks so much for your reply!......one less worry/concern in a world environment that is hell bent to kill as many people as possible.... God help us all!......Actually the tendrils run so deep it will likely take a miracle to stop it all🎯💜🙏
Totally agree! It did say "processed" which usually means adding preservatives- oh sure, your dead body underground wont break down/preserved for years!
Dead bodies that are embalmed so they don’t “break down”? Don’t be silly.
Exactly. If bacon is cured; what did it have?
I'm always a bit irritated by the term "processed meat". Obviously, a steak is not, a can of Vienna sausages is. But it seems there are degrees. Even supermarket bacon seems less tainted than a slim-jim by processing. A gram of sugar or HFCS is clear, same with trans-fats (although they can vary). Processed meat seems more difficult to assess. Not so much defining whether processed or not, but the degree of processing, and how much that matters. If you take a roast and run it through the grinder, that's processing. But it's the same pure meat. More clarity needed IMO.
Sometimes there's just too much to say in one article... if you're reading these articles and in this headspace (most are NOT) you are already hopefully aware of these differences.
Not only that, the information at the granular level I'd like is either not available, or sketchy. I'm skeptical of studies, seems you can find one that says anything. Still, they aren't all worthless, and they indicate it's better to eat a steak than a hot dog. That's something. It's best to eat food that doesn't even have a label stating the ingredients IMO.
Rubbish!! Bacon and nitrates do not cause cancer these studies are flawed.
Did this study address nitrates & cancer? I didn’t bother to check.
In 1988, I wound up with a nasty bulbous growth with spikes coming out of it on my chest above my right breast...from honey. I learned that excess carbs created it from all the herb teas i was drinking daily...putting honey in them. I checked to see what I had done to cause it and noted that I was using quite a bit of honey. I stopped the honey and in less than 3 months the tumor disappeared; and only a small pink spot was left...and eventually it disappeared. Twelve years earlier, I developed a rapidly growing vaginal tumor which two doctors told me needed to be removed immediately, or I would be given 'no guarantees.' I opted to pray and a book came into my hands, which gave me an answer. I t was on raw fruit and vegetables by Dr. Norman W. Walker. I stopped using the dairy a nutritionist had recommended a few months earlier...and it disappeared in just over two months. So, when I got the second tumor, I simply checked to see what I was eating that caused it
The second was excess carb in the honey... and the first was caused by excess protein & fat in the dairy. I learned from personal experiences NOTHING GROWS WITHOUT A FUEL. Remove the fuel and food-created tumors will vanish. There are other tumors that are being caused by radiation from cell phones right in the spot, where the phone is held next to the ear. Children are very vulnerable to radiation... and parents should not let them play with cellphones. This cellphone generation is being exposed to massive radiation and it is not safe.
Nick, you have to put these measures in non technical terms, like one bite of a burger or half a can of soda. Your readers don’t want scientific measurements. Once I hit your tech terms, my eyes glaze over and I archive the post anf go on to something else. You can do better. You are not writing for your teachers any more. Your audience is largely nontechnical. Treat them with respect. Please.
Ya I call BS on the "processed meat"
Correlate with almost 50% higher diabetes than soda? C9me on, man.
OK, I think we know a lot of this.
Are we deflecting from Cancer caused by vaccine immune dysregulation?
There's more nitrates in vegetables.
So take vitamin C with your chenopods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaranthaceae and celery! https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/29/755115208/duped-in-the-deli-aisle-no-nitrates-added-labels-are-often-misleading
Who didn't know this?
But let's keep our eye on the ball.
It's the shots!
Stick to the shots!
As for "sugar-sweetened" beverages -- was the study referring to high fructose corn syrup or cane sugar or GMO beet sugar? Most bottled beverages are sweetened with HFCS, which, according to numerous studies, greatly increases the risk of diabetes and other conditions. Not saying sugar is a health food, but HFCS is a dangerous additive and belongs in a different category.
It's the fructose, I tell you!
I think these methods are the end of all scientific literature, now to "produce work" millions of articles are published on scientific sites, no one is able to analyze in detail the errors or wrong hypotheses and unmask any camouflage manipulations of data incorrect methods and no one presents us for each work a sufficient self-criticism or the sensitivity of the methods used with respect to any errors or alternative methods that could be more correct if then someone really has something to say that is very different from the dominant trend you are censored. The studies do not have a sufficiently public critical review in which all science is laid bare every method every hypothesis and every conclusion, there is no discussion as if we were explaining what was wrong, but we tend to a self-referential specialist language.
It's actually nutritionally impossible for even processed meat to cause diabetes.
Nicolas has only one thing left to learn about "nutritional studies": they're all associative guesswork - which is anything but scientific.
That's when the snake oil salesmen come out like this study criticizing meat.
We've been lied to so long about fat and meat being detrimental in our diet that we've forgotten our direct ancestors have been eating it for 5 millions years and we wouldn't be here today without it being the majority in our diet.
Most diseases today are the result of plant agriculture from both the diet and chemicals involved.
That's what science proves.
In her 'Why aren’t Italians as obese as Americans? It’s not really what they eat.' Tamar Haspel noted that "Italians do, however, eat much less meat. Americans eat 67 percent more."
There's the answer. All meat contains arachidonic acid. In 2019 Steve Blechman wrote, "The Mediterranean diet is low in arachidonic acid and rich in healthy fats such as monounsaturated fats found in extra-virgin olive oil (EVOO), nuts and omega-3 fatty acids from fish, which has been shown to lower the risk of inflammation, heart disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity, and other degenerative diseases." https://advancedmolecularlabs.com/blogs/news/new-red-meat-study-controversy
Norwegian animal science researchers expressed concern about the arachidonic acid content of meat more than a decade ago. "Chicken meat with reduced concentration of arachidonic acid (AA) and reduced ratio between omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids has potential health benefits because a reduction in AA intake dampens prostanoid signaling, and the proportion between omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids is too high in our diet." https://lipidworld.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-511X-9-37
In a 2021 article, Australian zoologist Anthony Hulbert wrote, "As a final comment, I note that we are only beginning to understand the implications of the balance between omega-3 and omega-6 fats in the human diet. Although most animals have a relatively constant diet, we humans are especially diverse (both between individuals and over time) in the types of food we consume. Over the last half-century, the modern human food chain has emphasised omega-6 and diminished omega-3 intake, largely because of: (i) a shift from animal fats to vegetable oils, (ii) an increase in grain-fed meat and dairy, and (iii) a decline in full-fat dairy products from grass-fed livestock (an important source of omega-3). In the opinion of the current author and others, these diet trends are likely to be responsible for the increased incidence of obesity and other modern epidemics of chronic disease, but that is a story for another time." https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/224/8/jeb232538/256572/The-under-appreciated-fats-of-life-the-two-types
"An excessive intake of arachidonic acid eventually loads adipose tissue with arachidonic acid. It is a gradual process. Unfortunately, influential scientists have concluded, on the basis of short-term (12-week) arachidonic acid supplementation studies, that the arachidonic acid content of the food supply is not an issue. For example, in a 2007 article Philip Calder wrote, "Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind that, just because there is little biological impact of an increase in arachidonic acid intake or status, there may still be significant benefit from a decrease in its intake or status." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17705889/
It is important to understand that arachidonic acid has an impact on both eicosanoid and endocannabinoid production. Generally speaking, eicosanoid overproduction affects insulin sensitivity https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3031257/ and endocannabinoid overproduction affects appetite. https://www.kxan.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/795302194/experts-sound-alarm-on-dangerous-omega-6-and-omega-3-imbalance-in-u-s-food-supply/
Lastly, it is important to understand that linoleic acid molecules can displace arachdonic from their positions in cell membranes. So, high intakes of linoleic acid tend to reduce inflammation and improve insulin sensitivity which makes linoleic acid appear to be healthful. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/06/250621103446.htm
For more on the matter, do some 'adipose tissue arachidonic acid' web searches in conjunction with most any mental or physical malady that comes to mind. Examples: adipose tissue arachidonic acid metabolic syndrome, adipose tissue arachidonic acid depression, adipose tissue arachidonic acid breast cancer, adipose tissue arachidonic acid heart disease.
I have avoided pork altogether because of the MRNA contamination unless I know the producer, and even then I am a little concerned.
Thank you Nicolas. I do not drink SSB’s and rarely consume Trans fats but I get my share of sugar in other things and I do enjoy processed meats if given a chance.
Sure glad you don't render transvestites for their lard.
Me too! Your welcome.
Let’s ignore the fact that millions owe their lives to processed foods. People used to die from acute food poisoning- gastroenteritis and hunger. Now, in the USA obesity is the problem. We are lucky to live in prosperous times in the land of milk and honey.