this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2025
94 points (88.5% liked)

Public Health

1040 readers
62 users here now

For issues concerning:

๐Ÿฉบ This community has a broader scope so please feel free to discuss. When it may not be clear, leave a comment talking about why something is important.

Related Communities

See the pinned post in the Medical Community Hub for links and descriptions. link (!medicine@lemmy.world)

Rules

Given the inherent intersection that these topics have with politics, we encourage thoughtful discussions while also adhering to the mander.xyz instance guidelines.

Try to focus on the scientific aspects and refrain from making overly partisan or inflammatory content

Our aim is to foster a respectful environment where we can delve into the scientific foundations of these topics. Thank you!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@mander.xyz
otter@lemmy.ca
jet@hackertalks.com
94
Americans Who Ditched Meat Significantly Reduced the Risk of Developing Cancer, New Study Finds (veganfta.com)
submitted 3 days ago by Sunshine@piefed.ca to c/publichealth@mander.xyz
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] echolalia@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Yes, there does seem to be a disconnect here.

Using weak epidemiology to inform public policy, etc, is bad.

Calling epidemiology guessing, or saying that it's use is "not in the realm of empiricism but of theology" is hyperbole. If you're going to critique a paper because it's being presented to a layman audience, you should probably avoid that (that being: exaggeration. Don't do that.).

This has, more or less been my point for this entire comment chain. Your exaggeration is harmful to your overall argument. Especially because people take up a sports-team sort of ideological following for eating meat vs not eating meat. I'd be especially avoidant of exaggeration for that reason.

[โ€“] jet@hackertalks.com 1 points 3 days ago

I didn't say epidemiology was guessing

I said the statistical controls for confounding variables are guesses. And that is true

I didn't say epidemiology was theology.

The abandonment of science, falling back onto week epidemiology is theology

I don't know how to express this more clearly