- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
It's getting hard to differentiate science from advocacy, especially when money is involved.
The Meat Wars: JAMA Stirs the Pot
Guest Essay by Kip Hansen — 20 January 2020 Rita Rubin, Senior Writer, JAMA Medical News & Perspectives, has stirred the pot on the controversy surrounding a series of studies published last Fall in the Annals of Internal Medicine, “one of the most widely cited and influential specialty medical journals in the world.” Her …
Continue reading →
Rita Rubin, Senior Writer, JAMA Medical News & Perspectives, has stirred the pot on the controversy surrounding a series of studies published last Fall in the Annals of Internal Medicine, “one of the most widely cited and influential specialty medical journals in the world.” Her latest piece, titled “Backlash Over Meat Dietary Recommendations Raises Questions About Corporate Ties to Nutrition Scientists”, appeared in JAMA online on 15 January 2020. It begins with this:
The Meat Wars: JAMA Stirs the Pot
Guest Essay by Kip Hansen — 20 January 2020 Rita Rubin, Senior Writer, JAMA Medical News & Perspectives, has stirred the pot on the controversy surrounding a series of studies published last Fall in the Annals of Internal Medicine, “one of the most widely cited and influential specialty medical journals in the world.” Her …
Continue reading →
Rita Rubin, Senior Writer, JAMA Medical News & Perspectives, has stirred the pot on the controversy surrounding a series of studies published last Fall in the Annals of Internal Medicine, “one of the most widely cited and influential specialty medical journals in the world.” Her latest piece, titled “Backlash Over Meat Dietary Recommendations Raises Questions About Corporate Ties to Nutrition Scientists”, appeared in JAMA online on 15 January 2020. It begins with this:
“It’s almost unheard of for medical journals to get blowback for studies before the data are published. But that’s what happened to the Annals of Internal Medicine last fall as editors were about to post several studies showing that the evidence linking red meat consumption with cardiovascular disease and cancer is too weak to recommend that adults eat less of it.
Annals Editor-in-Chief Christine Laine, MD, MPH, saw her inbox flooded with roughly 2000 emails—most bore the same message, apparently generated by a bot—in a half hour. Laine’s inbox had to be shut down, she said. Not only was the volume unprecedented in her decade at the helm of the respected journal, the tone of the emails was particularly caustic.
“We’ve published a lot on firearm injury prevention,” Laine said. “The response from the NRA (National Rifle Association) was less vitriolic than the response from the True Health Initiative.”. . .
The JAMA article by Rita Rubin is a great deal more even handed. She states bluntly:
Annals Editor-in-Chief Christine Laine, MD, MPH, saw her inbox flooded with roughly 2000 emails—most bore the same message, apparently generated by a bot—in a half hour. Laine’s inbox had to be shut down, she said. Not only was the volume unprecedented in her decade at the helm of the respected journal, the tone of the emails was particularly caustic.
“We’ve published a lot on firearm injury prevention,” Laine said. “The response from the NRA (National Rifle Association) was less vitriolic than the response from the True Health Initiative.”. . .
The JAMA article by Rita Rubin is a great deal more even handed. She states bluntly:
“But what has for the most part been overlooked is that Katz and THI and many of its council members [which includes Frank Hu and Walter Willett] have numerous industry ties themselves. The difference is that their ties are primarily with companies and organizations that stand to profit if people eat less red meat and a more plant-based diet. Unlike the beef industry, these entities are surrounded by an aura of health and wellness, although that isn’t necessarily evidence-based.”. . . .