November 17, 2022 | Volume XIII | Issue 46

Red Meat Is Not a Health Risk. A New Study Slams Years of Shoddy Research.

Ross Pomeroy reports for RealClear Science:

Studies have been linking red meat consumption to health problems like heart disease, stroke, and cancer for years. But nestled in the recesses of those published papers are notable limitations.

Nearly all the research is observational, unable to tease out causation convincingly. Most are plagued by confounding variables. For example, perhaps meat eaters simply eat fewer vegetables, or tend to smoke more, or exercise less? Moreover, many are based on self-reported consumption. The simple fact is that people can’t remember what they eat with any accuracy. And lastly, the reported effect sizes in these scientific papers are often small. Is a supposed 15% greater risk of cancer really worth worrying about?

In a new, unprecedented effort, scientists at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) scrutinized decades of research on red meat consumption and its links to various health...

Read More

The Problem with Declaring a 'Pandemic Amnesty'

Jack Elbaum

Recently, The Atlantic published an article by Dr. Emily Oster, an economics professor at Brown University, titled “Let’s Declare A Pandemic Amnesty.”

In the piece, Oster argues that, throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, we were plagued by a lack of true knowledge about the best way to react to the virus. Consequently, “almost every position was taken on every topic. And on every topic, someone was eventually proved right, and someone else was proved wrong.”

Because of this, Oster argues we should forgive those who were wrong and move on; after all, how could they be blamed for their position when all the information was not available? By doing this, she concludes, we can avoid “a repetitive doom loop” of negativity and address the issues—ranging from a dip in test scores to a rise in mental health problems—that we are now facing.

This may seem like a reasonable argument at first glance. It is true that there was a lot we did not know at the start of the pandemic; it is also true that solely dwelling on the past can prevent people from moving forward in a productive way.

At the same time, upon closer examination, the core of Oster’s argument is deeply flawed because 1) it does not reckon with the real injustices done to millions of people during the pandemic as a result of arrogant policymaking and 2) it fundamentally misunderstands the nature and role of forgiveness in society.

Read More

Learn More

Public Health Is in Dangerous Denial about Vaping

Martin Cullip reports for RealClear Policy:

Most people, especially in lower socioeconomic areas where smoking has historically been most prevalent, will know someone who has replaced their previous smoking habit by exclusively vaping. Yet, it is still the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) misguided view that vaping is not helping people quit smoking traditional cigarettes. The agency’s published guide to e-cigarettes still claims that “there is not yet enough evidence to support claims that e-cigarettes and other [electronic nicotine delivery devices] are effective tools for quitting smoking.”

Read More

Harvard Researchers Say They Are Close to Reversing Aging

Researchers at Harvard University are investigating whether human genes could reverse the effects of aging.

The potential to reverse aging is a bold claim to make, one that conjures the fabled Fountain of Youth and inspires a significant amount of medical research today.

NBC Medical Fellow Dr. Akshay Syal got exclusive access to the Harvard lab, led by Dr. David Sinclair, to discuss the future of how to defy aging.

Watch the video HERE.

Publisher of Week in Review, Specialty Focus, FHIweekly & Game Changers