Welcome to the new Community design. We know there are some big changes to get used to as well some challenges and bugs. Please check out our post about New Updates To The Community as well as Outstanding Bugs. We will continue to collect feedback and bug issues and will work to make improvements.

Pork tenderloin, a good alternative to chicken?

1456810

Replies

  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,373 Member
    Mellouk89 wrote: »
    But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.

    The study? No, not really.
    One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.

    Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.

    No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.

    That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.

    The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.

    Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.


    I agree. It's important to look who the source behind the source of these studies are...

    when there's $$$$ involved one may be able to skew the "results" one way or the other..

    which is why i take the "studies" that aspartame et al are sooper dooper safe with a grain of salt

    Sigh. Please explain to me what corporate interest is being served by the studies posted in this thread that look into the consumption of processed meat in a critical light?

    Can't answer that. Trying to find the who's and why's would be like chasing a bunny down the rabbit hole.

    In the end nobody does nuthin' for nuthin' these days. They'll publish what they want us to know and hold back what they do not.

    More tin hat.
    Really?

    It's right there in the publication.

    Real question, how do expect people to take your posts with any seriousness when you post vague accusations like that? "I don't know but it's gotta be cause people are suspect?" That's what you've got?

    The research funding:
    The work described in this article was carried out with the financial support of Europe Against Cancer Program of the European Commission (SANCO); Deutsche Krebshilfe, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Danish Cancer Society; Health Research Fund (FIS) of the Spanish Ministry of Health, Spanish Regional Governments of Andalucia, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra; ISCIII RCESP exp. C03/09, Spain; Cancer Research UK; Medical Research Council, United Kingdom; Stroke Association, United Kingdom; British Heart Foundation; Department of Health, United Kingdom; Food Standards Agency, United Kingdom; Wellcome Trust, United Kingdom; the Hellenic Health Foundation and the Stavros Niarchos Foundation; Italian Association for Research on Cancer (AIRC); Italian National Research Council, Fondazione-Istituto Banco Napoli, Italy; Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); Swedish Cancer Society; Swedish Scientific Council; Regional Government of Skåne, Sweden; Nordforsk the Norwegian Cancer Society; French League against Cancer (LNCC); National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM), France; Mutuelle Générale de l'Education Nationale (MGEN), France; 3M Co, France; Gustave Roussy Institute (IGR), France; and General Councils of France.

    The sponsors had no input in the design, conduct, analysis, or interpretation of the study, and did not influence manuscript preparation.

    So which of those corporations has a food interest in the findings they published (consumption of processed meats presents some risks?)

    Obviously 3M. Their command adhesive is used to create sausage/salami skins.

    In France. Mais oui.
  • atypicalsmith
    atypicalsmith Posts: 2,742 Member
    Mellouk89 wrote: »
    But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.

    The study? No, not really.
    One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.

    Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.

    No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.

    That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.

    The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.

    Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.


    I agree. It's important to look who the source behind the source of these studies are...

    when there's $$$$ involved one may be able to skew the "results" one way or the other..

    which is why i take the "studies" that aspartame et al are sooper dooper safe with a grain of salt

    Sigh. Please explain to me what corporate interest is being served by the studies posted in this thread that look into the consumption of processed meat in a critical light?

    Can't answer that. Trying to find the who's and why's would be like chasing a bunny down the rabbit hole.

    In the end nobody does nuthin' for nuthin' these days. They'll publish what they want us to know and hold back what they do not.

    More tin hat.
    Really?

    It's right there in the publication.

    Real question, how do expect people to take your posts with any seriousness when you post vague accusations like that? "I don't know but it's gotta be cause people are suspect?" That's what you've got?

    The research funding:
    The work described in this article was carried out with the financial support of Europe Against Cancer Program of the European Commission (SANCO); Deutsche Krebshilfe, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Danish Cancer Society; Health Research Fund (FIS) of the Spanish Ministry of Health, Spanish Regional Governments of Andalucia, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra; ISCIII RCESP exp. C03/09, Spain; Cancer Research UK; Medical Research Council, United Kingdom; Stroke Association, United Kingdom; British Heart Foundation; Department of Health, United Kingdom; Food Standards Agency, United Kingdom; Wellcome Trust, United Kingdom; the Hellenic Health Foundation and the Stavros Niarchos Foundation; Italian Association for Research on Cancer (AIRC); Italian National Research Council, Fondazione-Istituto Banco Napoli, Italy; Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); Swedish Cancer Society; Swedish Scientific Council; Regional Government of Skåne, Sweden; Nordforsk the Norwegian Cancer Society; French League against Cancer (LNCC); National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM), France; Mutuelle Générale de l'Education Nationale (MGEN), France; 3M Co, France; Gustave Roussy Institute (IGR), France; and General Councils of France.

    The sponsors had no input in the design, conduct, analysis, or interpretation of the study, and did not influence manuscript preparation.

    So which of those corporations has a food interest in the findings they published (consumption of processed meats presents some risks?)

    None of them. But they are tax-free nonprofit organizations, and this is what peoples' donations are paying for. How sad. I have a friend with MS who needed a new pair of glasses. I called the MS nonprofit and they said they don't fund things like that -they fund research for a cure. Go figure.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,373 Member
    edited June 2015
    Mellouk89 wrote: »
    But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.

    The study? No, not really.
    One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.

    Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.

    No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.

    That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.

    The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.

    Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.


    I agree. It's important to look who the source behind the source of these studies are...

    when there's $$$$ involved one may be able to skew the "results" one way or the other..

    which is why i take the "studies" that aspartame et al are sooper dooper safe with a grain of salt

    Sigh. Please explain to me what corporate interest is being served by the studies posted in this thread that look into the consumption of processed meat in a critical light?

    Can't answer that. Trying to find the who's and why's would be like chasing a bunny down the rabbit hole.

    In the end nobody does nuthin' for nuthin' these days. They'll publish what they want us to know and hold back what they do not.

    More tin hat.
    Really?

    It's right there in the publication.

    Real question, how do expect people to take your posts with any seriousness when you post vague accusations like that? "I don't know but it's gotta be cause people are suspect?" That's what you've got?

    The research funding:
    The work described in this article was carried out with the financial support of Europe Against Cancer Program of the European Commission (SANCO); Deutsche Krebshilfe, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Danish Cancer Society; Health Research Fund (FIS) of the Spanish Ministry of Health, Spanish Regional Governments of Andalucia, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra; ISCIII RCESP exp. C03/09, Spain; Cancer Research UK; Medical Research Council, United Kingdom; Stroke Association, United Kingdom; British Heart Foundation; Department of Health, United Kingdom; Food Standards Agency, United Kingdom; Wellcome Trust, United Kingdom; the Hellenic Health Foundation and the Stavros Niarchos Foundation; Italian Association for Research on Cancer (AIRC); Italian National Research Council, Fondazione-Istituto Banco Napoli, Italy; Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); Swedish Cancer Society; Swedish Scientific Council; Regional Government of Skåne, Sweden; Nordforsk the Norwegian Cancer Society; French League against Cancer (LNCC); National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM), France; Mutuelle Générale de l'Education Nationale (MGEN), France; 3M Co, France; Gustave Roussy Institute (IGR), France; and General Councils of France.

    The sponsors had no input in the design, conduct, analysis, or interpretation of the study, and did not influence manuscript preparation.

    So which of those corporations has a food interest in the findings they published (consumption of processed meats presents some risks?)

    None of them. But they are tax-free nonprofit organizations, and this is what peoples' donations are paying for. How sad. I have a friend with MS who needed a new pair of glasses. I called the MS nonprofit and they said they don't fund things like that -they fund research for a cure. Go figure.

    So what you posted was just innuendo and questioning the character of researchers.
    Imagine that people's donations to research on the causes of cancer is .... Gasp... Going to look into the causes of cancer.
    How terrible, indeed!

    If your friend needs glasses - that's what health payers (public or private) are for.
    There are also organizations that help find glasses for those that can't afford them. Where is your friend based?

    ETA: in North Carolina, contact:
    http://www.new-eyes.org
  • MonsoonStorm
    MonsoonStorm Posts: 371 Member
    edited June 2015
    Mellouk89 wrote: »
    But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.

    The study? No, not really.
    One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.

    Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.

    No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.

    That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.

    The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.

    Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.


    I agree. It's important to look who the source behind the source of these studies are...

    when there's $$$$ involved one may be able to skew the "results" one way or the other..

    which is why i take the "studies" that aspartame et al are sooper dooper safe with a grain of salt

    Sigh. Please explain to me what corporate interest is being served by the studies posted in this thread that look into the consumption of processed meat in a critical light?

    Can't answer that. Trying to find the who's and why's would be like chasing a bunny down the rabbit hole.

    In the end nobody does nuthin' for nuthin' these days. They'll publish what they want us to know and hold back what they do not.

    More tin hat.
    Really?

    It's right there in the publication.

    Real question, how do expect people to take your posts with any seriousness when you post vague accusations like that? "I don't know but it's gotta be cause people are suspect?" That's what you've got?

    The research funding:
    The work described in this article was carried out with the financial support of Europe Against Cancer Program of the European Commission (SANCO); Deutsche Krebshilfe, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Danish Cancer Society; Health Research Fund (FIS) of the Spanish Ministry of Health, Spanish Regional Governments of Andalucia, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra; ISCIII RCESP exp. C03/09, Spain; Cancer Research UK; Medical Research Council, United Kingdom; Stroke Association, United Kingdom; British Heart Foundation; Department of Health, United Kingdom; Food Standards Agency, United Kingdom; Wellcome Trust, United Kingdom; the Hellenic Health Foundation and the Stavros Niarchos Foundation; Italian Association for Research on Cancer (AIRC); Italian National Research Council, Fondazione-Istituto Banco Napoli, Italy; Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); Swedish Cancer Society; Swedish Scientific Council; Regional Government of Skåne, Sweden; Nordforsk the Norwegian Cancer Society; French League against Cancer (LNCC); National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM), France; Mutuelle Générale de l'Education Nationale (MGEN), France; 3M Co, France; Gustave Roussy Institute (IGR), France; and General Councils of France.

    The sponsors had no input in the design, conduct, analysis, or interpretation of the study, and did not influence manuscript preparation.

    So which of those corporations has a food interest in the findings they published (consumption of processed meats presents some risks?)

    None of them. But they are tax-free nonprofit organizations, and this is what peoples' donations are paying for. How sad. I have a friend with MS who needed a new pair of glasses. I called the MS nonprofit and they said they don't fund things like that -they fund research for a cure. Go figure.

    there are different branches of medical charities that cater towards different things. Some cater more to research, some cater to giving home support, some cater to practicalities and providing quality of life improvements.

    All you need to do is shop around to find the most appropriate charity. Perhaps a vision impairment charity would have been more appropriate

    *edit* a quick look on wiki for MS shows a total of 15 US charities in the US and 6 in the UK, so when you say "the MS nonprofit" in all likelihood you reached the one that didn't meet your needs. You can't hold that against them.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,373 Member
    edited June 2015
    Mellouk89 wrote: »
    But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.

    The study? No, not really.
    One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.

    Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.

    No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.

    That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.

    The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.

    Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.


    I agree. It's important to look who the source behind the source of these studies are...

    when there's $$$$ involved one may be able to skew the "results" one way or the other..

    which is why i take the "studies" that aspartame et al are sooper dooper safe with a grain of salt

    Sigh. Please explain to me what corporate interest is being served by the studies posted in this thread that look into the consumption of processed meat in a critical light?

    Can't answer that. Trying to find the who's and why's would be like chasing a bunny down the rabbit hole.

    In the end nobody does nuthin' for nuthin' these days. They'll publish what they want us to know and hold back what they do not.

    More tin hat.
    Really?

    It's right there in the publication.

    Real question, how do expect people to take your posts with any seriousness when you post vague accusations like that? "I don't know but it's gotta be cause people are suspect?" That's what you've got?

    The research funding:
    The work described in this article was carried out with the financial support of Europe Against Cancer Program of the European Commission (SANCO); Deutsche Krebshilfe, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Danish Cancer Society; Health Research Fund (FIS) of the Spanish Ministry of Health, Spanish Regional Governments of Andalucia, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra; ISCIII RCESP exp. C03/09, Spain; Cancer Research UK; Medical Research Council, United Kingdom; Stroke Association, United Kingdom; British Heart Foundation; Department of Health, United Kingdom; Food Standards Agency, United Kingdom; Wellcome Trust, United Kingdom; the Hellenic Health Foundation and the Stavros Niarchos Foundation; Italian Association for Research on Cancer (AIRC); Italian National Research Council, Fondazione-Istituto Banco Napoli, Italy; Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); Swedish Cancer Society; Swedish Scientific Council; Regional Government of Skåne, Sweden; Nordforsk the Norwegian Cancer Society; French League against Cancer (LNCC); National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM), France; Mutuelle Générale de l'Education Nationale (MGEN), France; 3M Co, France; Gustave Roussy Institute (IGR), France; and General Councils of France.

    The sponsors had no input in the design, conduct, analysis, or interpretation of the study, and did not influence manuscript preparation.

    So which of those corporations has a food interest in the findings they published (consumption of processed meats presents some risks?)

    None of them. But they are tax-free nonprofit organizations, and this is what peoples' donations are paying for. How sad. I have a friend with MS who needed a new pair of glasses. I called the MS nonprofit and they said they don't fund things like that -they fund research for a cure. Go figure.

    there are different branches of medical charities that cater towards different things. Some cater more to research, some cater to giving home support, some cater to practicalities and providing quality of life improvements.

    All you need to do is shop around to find the most appropriate charity. Perhaps a vision impairment charity would have been more appropriate

    http://www.new-eyes.org
    http://www.new-eyes.org/marvel-optics
  • FitForL1fe
    FitForL1fe Posts: 1,872 Member
    edited June 2015
    lol where the hell has this thread gone

    EAT MOR CHIKIN

    cow-billborads.jpg
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,785 Member
    edited June 2015
    draznyth wrote: »
    lol where the hell has this thread gone

    I think it lives here:

    tin-foil-home-2-thumb-450x298.jpg

  • NobodyPutsAmyInTheCorner
    NobodyPutsAmyInTheCorner Posts: 1,018 Member
    draznyth wrote: »
    lol where the hell has this thread gone

    EAT MOR CHIKIN

    cow-billborads.jpg

    It's actually gone off on such a tangent that I cannot even remember the original post. :flushed:
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 25,223 Member
    In Okinawa, there is a community where more people live to be over 100 than anywhere else in the world. Their diet consists of primarily plant based food, but they do include pork in their diet in small amounts. One would think, in Japan, that they would be eating fish, but that is not the case.

    That community is also based on an island. Genetic diversity (or lack thereof) would also need to be taken in to account, along with the many other things that exist in standard western diets that aren't prevalent in their diet.

    Meat isn't the only thing that is reduced in their diet. They also consume fewer calories in general and are more active and live fairly stress-free lives in comparison (i.e. they maintain a fairly healthy lifestyle).

    Less sugar, less grains, less meat, less dairy, less stress - pick your villain.

    When I lived in Okinawa and biked to work in the AM, I used to see groups of Okinawans doing exercises outside. I can't recall ever seeing an overweight Okinawan.
  • Dnarules
    Dnarules Posts: 2,076 Member
    draznyth wrote: »
    lol where the hell has this thread gone

    EAT MOR CHIKIN

    cow-billborads.jpg

    But....it's about eating pork. I think.

  • FitForL1fe
    FitForL1fe Posts: 1,872 Member
    Dnarules wrote: »
    draznyth wrote: »
    lol where the hell has this thread gone

    EAT MOR CHIKIN

    cow-billborads.jpg

    But....it's about eating pork. I think.

    were I more ambitious I'd have shooped that pic for pork relevance

    but here we are
  • Dnarules
    Dnarules Posts: 2,076 Member
    draznyth wrote: »
    Dnarules wrote: »
    draznyth wrote: »
    lol where the hell has this thread gone

    EAT MOR CHIKIN

    cow-billborads.jpg

    But....it's about eating pork. I think.

    were I more ambitious I'd have shooped that pic for pork relevance

    but here we are

    That's ok... I found it hilarious. Which led to me accidentally bumping the thread :).

  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,056 Member
    Mellouk89 wrote: »
    But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.

    The study? No, not really.
    One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.

    Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.

    No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.

    That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.

    The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.

    Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.


    I agree. It's important to look who the source behind the source of these studies are...

    when there's $$$$ involved one may be able to skew the "results" one way or the other..

    which is why i take the "studies" that aspartame et al are sooper dooper safe with a grain of salt

    Sigh. Please explain to me what corporate interest is being served by the studies posted in this thread that look into the consumption of processed meat in a critical light?

    Can't answer that. Trying to find the who's and why's would be like chasing a bunny down the rabbit hole.

    In the end nobody does nuthin' for nuthin' these days. They'll publish what they want us to know and hold back what they do not.

    More tin hat.
    Really?

    It's right there in the publication.

    Real question, how do expect people to take your posts with any seriousness when you post vague accusations like that? "I don't know but it's gotta be cause people are suspect?" That's what you've got?

    @EvgeniZyntx

    Fair call :smile:

    This probably wasn't the correct thread or topic to base my assumptions on. And no I didn't look into who funded the studies on Red meat, because in all honesty I don't care.

    I think I was projecting my suspicions on those aspartame studies into this thread.. If I read one more post from someone saying they guzzle 10 cans of diet soda a day and on top of that have no problems letting their kids slam em down aswell, my head will explode!
    So, I apologise for running off on a tangent, this was not the thread for it.

  • FitForL1fe
    FitForL1fe Posts: 1,872 Member
    Dnarules wrote: »
    draznyth wrote: »
    Dnarules wrote: »
    draznyth wrote: »
    lol where the hell has this thread gone

    EAT MOR CHIKIN

    cow-billborads.jpg

    But....it's about eating pork. I think.

    were I more ambitious I'd have shooped that pic for pork relevance

    but here we are

    That's ok... I found it hilarious. Which led to me accidentally bumping the thread :).

    lol this thread already bumped itself to insanity without our help anyway :tongue:
  • atypicalsmith
    atypicalsmith Posts: 2,742 Member
    Mellouk89 wrote: »
    But in the context of a mostly plant-based diet is it still relevant? We do know that a high-fiber diet can reduce the risk of colon cancer.

    The study? No, not really.
    One of the issues the researchers noted was that increase in meat consumption tended to replace part of a plant based diet. The issue would seem to be one for the other not one AND the other.

    Exactly. That's the way most "studies" are. They are usually funded by grants from corporations who want their own agenda as results.

    No. Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that most studies have issues or are agenda driven. That's just not true. Nor are most of the studies discussed here funded by corp grants.

    That kind of statement is actually pretty insulting.

    The researchers of that study pointed out those issues in the conclusion / discussion.

    Insulting? I think that the corporations which cause people to buy into these "studies" is insulting.


    I agree. It's important to look who the source behind the source of these studies are...

    when there's $$$$ involved one may be able to skew the "results" one way or the other..

    which is why i take the "studies" that aspartame et al are sooper dooper safe with a grain of salt

    Sigh. Please explain to me what corporate interest is being served by the studies posted in this thread that look into the consumption of processed meat in a critical light?

    Can't answer that. Trying to find the who's and why's would be like chasing a bunny down the rabbit hole.

    In the end nobody does nuthin' for nuthin' these days. They'll publish what they want us to know and hold back what they do not.

    More tin hat.
    Really?

    It's right there in the publication.

    Real question, how do expect people to take your posts with any seriousness when you post vague accusations like that? "I don't know but it's gotta be cause people are suspect?" That's what you've got?

    The research funding:
    The work described in this article was carried out with the financial support of Europe Against Cancer Program of the European Commission (SANCO); Deutsche Krebshilfe, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research; Danish Cancer Society; Health Research Fund (FIS) of the Spanish Ministry of Health, Spanish Regional Governments of Andalucia, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra; ISCIII RCESP exp. C03/09, Spain; Cancer Research UK; Medical Research Council, United Kingdom; Stroke Association, United Kingdom; British Heart Foundation; Department of Health, United Kingdom; Food Standards Agency, United Kingdom; Wellcome Trust, United Kingdom; the Hellenic Health Foundation and the Stavros Niarchos Foundation; Italian Association for Research on Cancer (AIRC); Italian National Research Council, Fondazione-Istituto Banco Napoli, Italy; Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); Swedish Cancer Society; Swedish Scientific Council; Regional Government of Skåne, Sweden; Nordforsk the Norwegian Cancer Society; French League against Cancer (LNCC); National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM), France; Mutuelle Générale de l'Education Nationale (MGEN), France; 3M Co, France; Gustave Roussy Institute (IGR), France; and General Councils of France.

    The sponsors had no input in the design, conduct, analysis, or interpretation of the study, and did not influence manuscript preparation.

    So which of those corporations has a food interest in the findings they published (consumption of processed meats presents some risks?)

    None of them. But they are tax-free nonprofit organizations, and this is what peoples' donations are paying for. How sad. I have a friend with MS who needed a new pair of glasses. I called the MS nonprofit and they said they don't fund things like that -they fund research for a cure. Go figure.

    there are different branches of medical charities that cater towards different things. Some cater more to research, some cater to giving home support, some cater to practicalities and providing quality of life improvements.

    All you need to do is shop around to find the most appropriate charity. Perhaps a vision impairment charity would have been more appropriate

    *edit* a quick look on wiki for MS shows a total of 15 US charities in the US and 6 in the UK, so when you say "the MS nonprofit" in all likelihood you reached the one that didn't meet your needs. You can't hold that against them.

    Actually, it doesn't matter. It is not in these charities' best interests to discover a cure, as that would cut off their donation supply (of which most of which is spent on administrative costs, not research or any other actual help to the people who are suffering). Oh, my, if they discovered a cure, all those administrators would be without jobs!
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,056 Member
    edited June 2015
    Don't shoot me down for this... But there is a theory that the government does not want to cure cancer, they make millions from the medications people have to be on to keep them alive. Not to mention the astronomical amount of people who die everyday from cancer related illnesses keeps the population to a more manageable level..

    I'm not saying this is true or not, it does seem pretty far out. It was just a heated discussion in the office the other week.
  • atypicalsmith
    atypicalsmith Posts: 2,742 Member
    Don't shoot me down for this... But there is a theory that the government does not want to cure cancer, they make millions from the medications people have to be on to keep them alive. Not to mention the astronomical amount of people who die everyday from cancer related illnesses keeps the population to a more manageable level..

    I'm not saying this is true or not, it does seem pretty far out. It was just a heated discussion in the office the other week.

    It sounds sadistic, but it really does seem with all the millions of dollars that people contribute, that surely a cure could have been found for the diseases that are killing us now. When polio affected thousands of people, a cure was nearly immediately found and not by a nonprofit agency collecting donations.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,658 Member
    Yeah. I bet there would be no money to be made with a cure for cancer.

    And a vaccination against the polio virus is super comparable to curing the myriad types and causes of cancer. I guess, in your world, there's some sinister reason for the lack of a bulletproof cure for the common cold because, hey, polio vaccine.
  • atypicalsmith
    atypicalsmith Posts: 2,742 Member
    Yeah. I bet there would be no money to be made with a cure for cancer.

    And a vaccination against the polio virus is super comparable to curing the myriad types and causes of cancer. I guess, in your world, there's some sinister reason for the lack of a bulletproof cure for the common cold because, hey, polio vaccine.

    Read the income and expense statements of nonprofits. Horrendous.