Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Shaw's Eco-Logic

The only thing we have to fear...are the fear entrepreneurs themselves

By Michael D. Shaw

You don’t have to be a fan of Franklin Delano Roosevelt to appreciate a great line. The title, of course, is a riff on FDR’s classic “So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” This was from his first inaugural address (March 4, 1933), and focused on the Depression, and his plans to solve it via government action. Unfortunately, his programs were largely ineffective, if not also ill-advised.

Which brings us to our current fearful matter: The demonizing of red meat and processed meat products, based on a textbook example of science by press release. In this case, it is Press Release No. 240, entitled “IARC Monographs evaluate consumption of red meat and processed meat,” dated 26 October 2015. (IARC = International Agency for Research on Cancer, affiliated with the UN/WHO) Here are the key findings:

1. IARC Monographs Program classified the consumption of red meat as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A), based on limited evidence that the consumption of red meat causes cancer in humans and strong mechanistic evidence supporting a carcinogenic effect. This association was observed mainly for colorectal cancer, but associations were also seen for pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer.

2. Processed meat was classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), based on sufficient evidence in humans that the consumption of processed meat causes colorectal cancer.

3. The experts concluded that each 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. In addition, each 100 gram portion of red meat eaten daily increases the risk by 17%.

As to definitions…

“Red meat” refers to all types of mammalian muscle meat, such as beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, and goat. “Processed meat” refers to meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavor or improve preservation.

Scary stuff, right? Maybe not.

In epidemiological terms, relative risks of 1.18 and 1.17 are statistically insignificant, and one wonders why the “experts” at IARC ignored this. Indeed, as a rule of thumb, an RR of at least 2.0 is necessary to indicate a cause and effect relationship, and a RR of 3.0 is preferred. This sentiment is echoed by most medical journals, the FDA, and the National Cancer Institute. Contrast this with the relative risk of lung cancer in smokers, RR=12.00.

Thus, we start off with junk science. But wait, there’s more. The IARC classification system does not assess the carcinogenic risk of the given agent, but rather, its rating of the quality of supporting evidence. Included in the dreaded Group 1 are alcoholic beverages, asbestos, benzene, diesel exhaust, mustard gas, tobacco products, and now…processed meat. However, this does not mean that processed meat is as carcinogenic as tobacco products or asbestos, even if that’s what such bogus authorities as Dr. Neal Barnard might want you to believe.

These are the five IARC groups…

Group 1—Carcinogenic to humans

Group 2A—Probably carcinogenic to humans

Group 2B—Possibly carcinogenic to humans

Group 3—Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans

Group 4—Probably not carcinogenic to humans

Of the 985 agents tested to date by IARC, only one (Caprolactam, used in the manufacture of synthetic fibers) was placed into Group 4.

To recap, IARC has taken insignificant epidemiological findings to classify red and processed meat as carcinogens; and is not terribly concerned about people drawing the wrong conclusions from processed meat being in the same group as real, notorious carcinogens.

Naturally, one good turn deserves another, and it only took minutes for Barnard’s inaptly-named Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine—little more than an animal rights/vegan front group, and no stranger to junk science—to post this gem:

“Schools and hospitals are required to protect students and patients from cancer-causing asbestos,” says Physicians Committee director of nutrition education Susan Levin, M.S., R.D. “If the World Health Organization says processed meats are just as dangerous, it’s time to protect them from hot dogs and pepperoni, too.”

Don’t hold your breath waiting for IARC to correct this preposterous overreach. In fact, expect much more outrageous claptrap, as the sat fat/low fat meme melts away, and the associated charlatans defend their crumbling empires.

Medical idolatry and healthcare outcomes - This HND piece takes aim at credentialism, and in a sense is a follow-up to an earlier posting. Among other things, we go after the almost comically greedy American Board of Internal Medicine, and cover their latest attempts at becoming a true life version of Dr. Evil. You'll love their ludicrous stance on copyright. Heck, even people who disagree with my views on the notion of copyright being mostly indefensible are appalled by how far into the wild blue yonder ABIM has taken it! As to the benefits of board certification, you'd think that with a nearly 80-year history and a complete monopoly, they would have reams of data supporting their cause. But, you'd be wrong. Read the complete article.

More on walking back the low fat - This HND piece continues the saga on how officialdom is trying to cover itself over the rapidly deteriorating diet/fat/cholesterol/heart disease meme. The elites are in full crisis mode now, as certain members of Congress are mocking them openly. Many people—from all walks of life—are criticizing the "Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee." But no one has done a better job than investigative journo Nina Teicholz, bestselling author of The Big Fat Surprise. The elites can only fight back by calling to authority, except that authority has been bankrupt for over 30 years. Read the complete article.

Dietary fat is no longer the bad guy, or Why does anyone listen to the experts? - This HND piece looks behind the current walking back of the "fat is evil" dietary theory. Readers of this blog know that the dietary fat/cholesterol/coronary heart disease meme has been disproved hundreds of times, but I guess bad ideas die very slowly. The change in the wind is likely a direct result of the feckless bureaucrats behind this garbage finally sensing that the party's over. Maybe we can find some genius economist to help us determine how many lives have been ruined or even lost because of this deadly wrong advice. Read the complete article.

Yet more mindless attacks on e-cigarettes - This HND piece picks up the baton from a few months ago. Only this time, the State of Indiana is complicit in a rotten crony capitalism scheme, which throws out the more popular closed e-cig systems, in favor of the old-school closed systems. Surely, it is only by coincidence that the closed systems—favored by Big tobacco—are exempt from the legislation. Yep, just like it's a coincidence that the closed systems aren't quite as good as the open devices at helping people quit smoking. Maybe some day, the public will connect the dots, and figure out that "public health" is the LAST thing on the minds of the ghouls in charge of government and private public health organizations. Read the complete article.

Are you over 70? Are you ready to die? - This HND piece exposes how the dubious notion of "sustainability" (popularized by the UN) has now caught up with the lifespan of humans. It seems that one way of improving lives for most, is to limit the lifespan of some. At least that's what came out of an article published last January in The Lancet. The geniuses who wrote it define premature death as occurring before age 70, implying that "most" of these are preventable. This has caused those over 70 to feel...left out. Ironically, some oldsters rightfully complaining about this ghoulish policy have no problem drinking the Kool-Aid on the rest of the 168 specific sustainability targets. Read the complete article.

Waste not, want not...for 2015 - This HND piece starts off with a historical perspective on waste management, up to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Then, it segues into the infamous Mobro 4000 affair. After that, we look at organized crime involvement, and a few other current issues. Read the complete article.

Who's watching the watchers: Big problems with ERCP scopes - This HND piece returns to the sadly familiar matter of deaths from contaminated ERCP scopes. This time, there is another wrongful death lawsuit, and perhaps more importantly, the FDA is now publicly getting involved. So, there's something for everyone! Regulatory screw-ups, manufacturers covering their rear end, and blame being thrown back and forth. The sad part of this is that it is not exactly "rocket science" to determine—once and for all—the best method to process these scopes. all that's standing in the way is fear, corruption, and a whole lot of money. Read the complete article.

All hail AllTrials - This HND piece shines a big spotlight on AllTrials, a project launched in the UK, which advocates that all clinical trials should be listed in a clinical trials registry, and their results should always be shared as open data. The motto is "All Trials Registered—All Results Reported." Recently, AllTrials has been launched the US. It comes as a surprise to most people that crummy clinical trial results are seldom publicized. The most obvious problem with this, of course, is that such negatives can help prevent disasters. There are many examples, but a particularly awful one involves certain arrhythmia drugs, which—to be kind—did not quite produce the intended results. Trouble is, in the absence of the earlier negative findings being published, around 100,000 poor souls dies unnecessarily. Gee, what if 66 Titanics sunk to the bottom of the North Atlantic? Do you think people might complain? Just one more demonstration of the rotten state of "science" these days. But this time, there's hope. Read the complete article.

No comments:

Post a Comment