Interesting report of his experience with WHO:
- He was on the World Health Organization working group to decide if meat causes cancer in 2015 with a bunch of vegetarians and vegans and says it was the most frustrating professional experience of his life
- There were 22 scientists - half of which were epidemiologists
- They claimed they used 800 studies but they actually only used 18
- There was a group of people that were strongly against the vote
- He thinks a number of the people made up their minds before they even arrived
>- They claimed they used 800 studies but they actually only used 18...
I hate this, it happens all the time. Basically, say, 20 studies, which each reference other studies. Group all the references, remove the duplicates, add 20, and BAM! 800 studies!
What's worse, if you take the time to read through the studies, related papers, and data, you'll find ridiculousness. Circles of "peer reviewers", who clearly either never read the papers they reviewed, or are not as good at advanced math as I am. (I choose to believe they never even read the papers, because I'm not the smartest guy in the world.)
Data that doesn't match conclusions.
Oftentimes you won't find a single replication of a given study.
And on and on and on.
It was hard out there for a pimp.
>- He thinks a number of the people made up their minds before they even arrived ..
I can guarantee you this happened. Having said that though, it's important to remember in situations like the ones the podcast describes, that people have their minds made up "for" and "against". Believe it or not, it's a lot like liberals and conservatives in that, they don't really care what the data says, they're going to do whatever ridiculous thing they want to do in any case. Which frustrated me to no end. I mean, in politics, OK, that's the way things work. Fine.
But in science? I was just like, man, what are you people doing?
Here are some takeaways:
"Which foods contain the most cholesterol? Eggs, fish, chicken, and red meat all earn the red light..."
"As for saturated fat, desserts, dairy, and snack foods are all designated as red light, with eggs, chicken, fish, and red meat getting the yellow light. Most of the saturated fat in the American diet comes from cheese (8.5%), pizza (5.9%), grain-based desserts (5.8%), dairy desserts (5.6%), and chicken (5.5%)."
"Salt levels are highest in lunch meat and snack foods, which both get a red light."
"...The more plant-based we get, apparently, the better."
Conclusion: Meat is bad, ultra processed foods are bad, and plant based diets are healthiest. Based on your comment alone, sounds like both Dr. Klurfeld and the WHO scientists are biased, whereas that book provides references to each and every claim that has science backing it. It's not rocket science, it's no surprise at all to find cholesterol, sodium, saturated fats, etc. are in meat and processed foods.
You say that like dietary cholesterol, sodium and saturated fats were bad for us. (They're not.)
Eating cholesterol has very little impact on the cholesterol levels in your body.
Salt is also not bad for you.
I'm sorry but Michael Greger, M.D., author of the said book, is a nutrition quack.