Friend: It's ok to be skeptical but one has to find some sources they believe share unbiased information. And if one has a source of many such sources they they can cross reference info and perhaps gain more confidence. For me, this Stanford study seems legit. It's science and frankly not super complicated science.

Perhaps you would trust the study if it came from UCI or Cal State Fullerton. Either way, the science doesn't change

Me: I think our institutions have been corrupted slowly over the decades and only escalted & accelerated in past 40years. From media, to large companies, to regulatory agencies, to healthcare, to government. Ucis, UCs and cal states were equal victims to this problem. I think the establishment of the central bank in the country famous for abolishing & rejecting it several times, America, in 1913, layed the foundation for downfall. 1933 executive order 6102 confiscated from honest actors. Everything in 1971 with creation of fiat, accelerated all after that. Fiat money corrupted others things

Friend: Man something's are hard to get a straight answer on... economics is one of those. From policies to consumer behavior... it's just hard to predict. However, human body, how it functions, impact of different foods etc is easier to control for and study.

Atleast thats my opinion.

Me: These are the same institutions with their "science" that push pastuerized milk. Hell no. I can tel), finally after too many years that this stuff is poison, however, funnily enough, raw milk has a completely opposite effect on my body makes me feel great instead of sick. Wtf?

i felt like i was conversating this meme with normie friend shared here. lol

note1a3yd2eaupal967e7zgy6l7uk256yfh7rnrak3m6umh46ypartt7ss2de2j

I agree with you on all your points. I didn’t see the rest of the rant however but my take is whatever the government says you should do with respect to health, diet etc - do the opposite

Me: You should read “Big Fat Surprise”, “Good Calories Bad Calories” “Undoctored”, “Eat Rich Live Long”.👍

ah, and last message ending this from friend (looks like the other continued messages are almost hidden in client Primal, gotta manually hit cloud button, kinda went out of order a bit)

Friend: Fair points about artificial sweeteners. I have accepted that the more mad made and processed an item the less likely it's good for us. Human bodies have evolved over thousands of years and there is inherent biological learnings to what's good and what's bad for the body. And the seems like the man made and processed stuff is just not something our bodies are designed for.

However, I would say like understanding of economics, science also evolves. And like economics, I am sure science also has influence from predatory sources. So the question is how do you pick and evaluate your sources of information and derive your own opinion.

At least going back to the topic, the show highlights few things that have been known for a long time... such as cholesterol is bad for you, and having visceral fat deep in your organs is bad for you. Red meats have more of these fats. The study also highlights how meat is raised, the energy needed to raise the meat, and hygiene involved in meat farms. I don't think there is much spin in the information, in face a lot of is not even new information. What's new is the fact that the study compared twins so that you can see the nature versus nurture (essentially same body, but different controlled variables). The results essentially show what is already known, but highlight the impact of nurture... the choices we make. Again, not something new, it's just something that's getting more attention now that we have paying acute attention to physical health and environmental sustainability.