or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bessy's revenge

post #1 of 3
Thread Starter 
A link to a nice finding describing a heretofore unknown effect of meat consumption. The senior author (Ajit!) is a really cool guy, too. Tofu burger anyone?

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/article1994.html
post #2 of 3
I place my full trust and faith in articles which use terms like "might", "could", "maybe" and the like. Sheeeee it, i could say the same thing about almost anything, sugar might cause cancer and heart disease and might be the cause of obesity in the US, or maybe not. Processed foods could cause our current obesity epidemic, or maybe not. Maybe it is trans fatty acids that are the root of all US health evils, but then again, maybe not.

Why even publish such crap? Tell us what you know, then shut up and get on to the next step in the experiment. Sheeeesh.
post #3 of 3
Thread Starter 
The authors are telling us what they know and then they go on and discuss some of the more global implications of their findings, which are, of course, mostly speculative at such an early stage and that's why they use words like: might, could, et al .

Unlike the examples that you provided, the glycoconjugate studied here is non-native and, presumably, can only be acquired by comsuming certain (non-human) animals and some of their by-products. This raises some obvious questions and also makes future studies nice in that there's less to control for.

So, what are you saying? That only the actual findings ought to be published, but lay off on the conjecture? No, the public needs to know where their tax monies are going and what the outcome of taxpayer-sponsored research is. Moreover, from the scientific side, having a grasp of the "big picture" is necessary for designing future studies.

So, Dood, ya going to make the next PDX Beer-fest? I'm itching for a cheeseburger.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: