"I doesn't seem like you have done a lot of scientific research or studies."

I haven't myself. But I have worked for 2 different organisations as an IT guy designing systems for scientists, over 10 years of working directly with scientists. In order to do this, I have had to have an intimate understanding of the scientific methods used in order to specifically design systems for them. As a result of this I have been involved in all angles of the scientific process, from getting funding, to setting up equipment and helping design testing regimes, extrapolating and managing complex result sets, reviewing publications for mistakes right through to publishing papers. This has been in areas including the testing and analysis of hazardous substances through to genetics in fish and social effects of food systems. So my exposure to scientists and their methodology is not insignificant.

It appears though that yours is less than satisfactory if you use an example such as this: "Did you know for example that in the 80's some University scientists had sure data that AIDS derived from Human-Ape humping?"

You are simply repeating a myth that appears to come from a quote from a WHO official who stated "There has been no new evidence to suggest that HIV was significantly spread by the smallpox vaccination campaign. I still believe that the big social changes of the 1950s brought the virus out of the jungle and into the cities. People moved more, tribal customs changed and there was more sexual contact."

Idiotic journalists appeared to therefore state that the cause of the AIDS virus was due to sexual contact with monkeys. Again, this isn't science stating this, this is media speculation. If you cannot separate one from the other, there is no hope. Frankly I am amazed that seemingly intelligent people either believe everything they hear, without verifying it or use complete contradictory reasoning to state their case.

"If you want to play poker with your research material this will go forever. For each contra meat you can find one contra veggy and vice versa in terms of nutrition and environmental impact. Which is sort of logical."

No it won't. I have not read a single piece of evidence that suggests a meat diet causes less environmental harm than a vegetarian diet. If you can show me a single piece of reasoned evidence, please show it. Otherwise I can show you many studies, from many different sources, which show that a veggie diet vs an omnivours diet has a significantly smaller environmental footprint. Here is a few to start you:

ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/664S.short
www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v61/n2/full/1602522a.html
ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/657S.short
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996909002658

These use many different types of food (the last one pork only). These are simply the top four links on google scholar, I could not find a contradictory report after examining the extracts of the first 20 scientific papers on the subject.

hey blobbles, it seems to me you're going into all kinds of contortions so that you don't have to admit you're wrong.

the egg thing clearly shows that the scientific community (and the media which reports their findings) is in bed with politics. it's not pure science. there's an agenda behind it.

if they want eggs to be bad for you, eggs will be bad for you.
if at a later date they decide that eggs are good for you, presto. every single mainstream scientist takes the same view at the same point in time.

so yes, i stand my ground and suggest that relying on the mainstream scientific community and mainstream media for information is a recipe for being confused about fact from fiction.

i get my information from rogue renegades who work outside the box. people who care about the planet and you can feel that they care through their writing. they're not just crunching out phony statistics. anyone who works for the FDA or writes for Scientific American, I can't run away fast enough from the lies these venomous snakes spew out.

and of course, the spaghetti monster is always a source of inspiration.

You're quoting Dudeson about the AIDS, not me.

I gave you another blatant example of how the scientific community is a circus act. The FDA's Food Pyramid Guide is BAD SCIENCE. Try it out. Follow it for 6 months. You'll get really fat.

Gary Taubes, who is himself a scientist, has written quite a few articles explaining some of the flaws that exist within the scientific community. Here's one such article. This is my last post on this topic. Thank you. All hail spaghetti monster.

www.nytimes.com/[...]

What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie? by Gary Taubes

While the low-fat-is-good-health dogma represents reality as we have come to know it, and the government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in research trying to prove its worth, the low-carbohydrate message has been relegated to the realm of unscientific fantasy.

ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1699S.short
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180099700579X
esu-services.ch/[...]

etc etc etc

Even looking up specific terms such as "meat diet cause less environmental impact" shows only studies that prove the opposite. I find it incredibly difficult to find any contrary information, except on blogs and opinion pieces such as:

chriskresser.com/[...]

Which doesn't actually compare red meat with diet, makes sloppy interpretations of scientific data and doesn't take a holistic view - for instance stating that pasture fed cows actually reduce the lands emission of nitrous oxide and therefore help global warming... while deftly avoiding the topic of their total emissions. He then goes on to suggest that cows are carbon negative, under the right conditions (raised on pasture, no additional feed, no fertilizer inputs). He does not state that this is currently less than 3% of cows on the planet used for beef production (organic grassfed beef), thereby misleading the reader into believing beef production is carbon neutral when under current conditions, completely the opposite is true. By cherry picking a study that shows a single data set he uses this to state a larger assumption which actually requires input from many other studies to be verified. These other studies are conveniently forgotten.

This is why you need to actually examine sources and question. Not just believe myths and media spun/opinionated pseudo science.

Please Magnifico, point out where I was wrong? I dont' see it??

What contortions are you referring to? The contortion of understanding and thinking that the scientific process is useful? Don't stop posting because you are getting emotional, I am just calling you out on a few things.

You state that science is unreliable, contradictory and full of lies.
You then state a scientific study that counters a former scientific study and use this to justify that science is a pack of lies (which doesn't make sense as you wouldn't know which scientists are lying).

If you can show me scientific studies from 1970's/80's that state eggs are bad for you, which are backed up by further comprehensive studies of populations eating eggs vs populations that aren't, I will happily agree with you about the egg/cholesterol link. Otherwise I maintain that you are using information from unreliable sources (media spun mostly) who make incorrect assumptions from scientific studies. As far as I can tell, the cholesterol/egg studies are fairly scientifically rigorous, it is the people making assumptions from their results where it all falls down. That doesn't mean the scientific process is wrong, or that scientists were lying, it does mean that ordinary unqualified people make bad assumptions on this data and create rumours and modern myths. That's not a scientific problem, that is a social problem. If you cannot differentiate the two, I am not sure you will understand.

"so yes, i stand my ground and suggest that relying on the mainstream scientific community and mainstream media for information is a recipe for being confused about fact from fiction."

Absolutely. If you read a study in mainstream media and don't actually look into the study yourself (because you don't have the education/time/whatever reason), then you are setting yourself up for failure. This includes looking at who funded the studies and the scientists who published the studies.

I have worked in an organisation which was funded from grants from many many industries and non profits. On a number of occasions scientific research was intentionally skewed, not by the scientists themselves (who reported the actual results in peer reviewed journals), but usually by either media or the original funders, who would cherry pick the data and create a media release referencing the article. Again, there was no fault with the scientific method or scientists behind it, if you read the studies, you would come to different conclusions as those in the media, who know that 95% of people would not read the original study. This usually lead to fairly angry scientists and in one case (a very young scientist who didn't understand the system), the redacting of the paper in protest (later republished under their mentors guidance). This is why, if you want to have any real foundation on any subject, you need to verify data, not just get your information from blogs/news and believing it. This is what you are appearing to do Magnifico with the links you have posted.

Again, this is not a problem with science and most scientists. It is a problem with how information is disseminated to the public and the public's ambivalence in thinking for themselves.

You state that science is unreliable, contradictory and full of lies.
You then state a scientific study that counters a former scientific study and use this to justify that science is a pack of lies (which doesn't make sense as you wouldn't know which scientists are lying).

Come on, man. I'll repeat this one last time. The ENTIRE scientific community comes to a consensus that eggs are bad. Not one scientist says "hey, wait a minute! my grandmother ate 42 eggs a day and lived to 109! maybe we should look into that."

And then 20 years later, the ENTIRE scientific community comes to the exact opposite consensus. The point is not which study is right or wrong. One of them is obviously wrong. The point is that if the system wasn't corrupt, scientists would be debating each other and coming to the right consensus a lot sooner. And the science behind determining whether eggs are healthy or not probably isn't even that complicated (although I could be wrong about that).

It doesn't work that way. The people who fund these studies pre-determine what they want the scientists to find (in many, not all cases). If you don't to believe it, then don't believe it. But that's how it is.

Another example is "eating red meat is linked to heart disease". There are thousands upon thousands of seemingly convincing 'scientific' studies which assert this. And unfortunately, as I was considering becoming vegetarian, I had the horrible experience of sifting through many of these pseudo-scientific fantasy pieces. And after much time wasted and struggle and scratching my balls, I realized that the studies were bullshit. Eating red meat does NOT cause heart disease. Why are there thousands of 'scientific' studies suggesting there is?

I don't know. Maybe you or the spaghetti monster could tell me.

What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie? by Gary Taube

This is an excellent opinion piece, by the way, which illustrates why a reductionist scientific methodology cannot be used to explain complex systems (like the human body/climate/food systems etc). It shows that previously specific data sets were used to show which foods are good/bad for you (cholesterol in the 60's, carbohydrates in the 80's etc) but not taking your entire lifestyle/genetics etc into account. It shows the only way to study a complex system is to measure inputs/outputs over a very large data set (they used 300k people in the first study). It shows that scientists cannot use specific inputs into a complex system and link these with specific outputs. They need to take into account the complexity of the entire system.

A recommended read for anyone that wants to understand why it appears scientists sometimes get things wrong - they use reductive reasoning for complex systems.

"The ENTIRE scientific community comes to a consensus that eggs are bad"

Where? Like I said, I cannot find any previously published scientific papers that show this. SHOW ME ONE, just one, please. Do I have to beg? I can't find one.

So if I can't find one, this could be a huge conspiracy to take down all previous findings on the issue, or it could be a problem with society, not science.