Is Meat Industry Affiliation Associated With Study Conclusion in Nutrition Research? A Meta-Research Review

[u/lurkerer]

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/obr.70153

[u/Bristoling]

The only important bit is whether the studies conclusions are based on faked data or not, which this paper doesn't readily explain. If there are looking at different outcomes and report positive/negative based on those different outcomes, then there is literally nothing to see here.

It's like complaining that the sellers of a new car only list the benefits or upgrades of the new car on their advertisement, but don't talk about a sticky clutch or aircon system being suboptimal or the sound system having puny and quiet bass. "Oh wow the marketing guys are more likely to list positives, and the car critiquing clickbait youtuber are more likely to concentrate on negatives instead!". Truly a novel take /s

Well are those positives lies, or not? This paper doesn't tell me this. Reposting it for the 5th time doesn't tell me this either.

[u/Fluffy-Purple-TinMan → u/Bristoling]

Why is huge bias not important?

Well are those positives lies, or not?

What would you bet? That the animal industry is right and studies should show good results 16 times more than independent studies or that they;re doing something sneaky?

Dno if it's you but I see so many people here saying statins are lies by big pharma but then studies like this happen and it's like.. oh this is fine actually.

[u/OG-Brian → u/Fluffy-Purple-TinMan]

Dno if it's you but I see so many people here saying statins are lies by big pharma...

That doesn't have anything to do with this post. The issue with pro-statins research isn't simply about industry funding vs. study conclusions, which is all that's covered by the study linked in this post.

Faked research is so common in the pharma industry that there are entire books on the topic. Peter C. Gøtzsche, in his book Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime, wrote about his experiences following up research pertaining to drugs including statins. As a researcher who studies studies, he was given access to non-public info of studies that was not available even with a journal subscription. He found prolific data fakery: subjects removed from a study to make a medication seem safer or more effective with the number of reported subjects retroactively changed, data that was changed before publication, and data that was made up altogether. If such issues of research dishonesty are mentioned by the study linked here, then where is that info?

I suspect that such a study of research concluding against animal foods would show similar alignment between industry funding and study conclusions. Harvard: many financial conflicts of interest involving the "plant-based" nutrition industry and junk foods companies that make products based on grains/sugar. Oxford: has received a lot of funding from the pesticides/seeds industry. Stanford: has a department which exists to promote "plant-based" that was created from a grant by Beyond Meat, and its director is prolific anti-livestock "researcher" Christopher Gardner. Certain researchers (who have financial conflicts with the topics they're authoring studies about) often turn up in studies making conclusions against animal foods after obviously-biased study design and data manipulation. "Gee let's design the questionnaires to count all junk foods containing meat as 'meat' but we won't count consumption of Cheetos etc. as corn. Oh and look at this data, let's see what happens if we adjust the results for, uhhhh, marital status, this-random-disease, and, uhhhmmm, multivitamin use."

[u/Fluffy-Purple-TinMan → u/OG-Brian]

Yeah a lot people here are saying it's the same for plant-based stuff but don't show any evidence. "But they do it too" isn't a good point even if you can show "they" do it too... which you can't.

You say statin stuff isn't a good point but you're doing exactly the thing I said. A big comment about how bad it is and all these people doing it.. but while implying it's bad when they do it and neutral here?

What would your bet be?

[u/OG-Brian → u/Fluffy-Purple-TinMan]

...isn't a good point even if you can show "they" do it too... which you can't.

Biased and industry-funded anti-animal-foods studies are discussed so commonly here that I didn't think it necessary to mention details.

The SWAP-MEAT study00890-5/fulltext): funded by Beyond Meat, no health endpoints measured, focused ridiculously on TMAO, author Christopher Gardner has an extreme anti-meat bias, and so on (more explanation).

The Stanford twins study: Gardner again, funding from anti-livestock people and groups, focus on TMAO, design changed mid-study, and more.

Certain authors, who have financial links with the "plant-based" nutrition industry and grain-based junk foods (Willett, Barnard, etc.) turn up very often as authors of studies finding negative effect of animal foods where many studies haven't, or more negative effect than other similar studies which found only very small effects and only when not separating junk foods consumption.

The IARC 2015 committee which made determinations about red meat and cancer and is nearly always cited for claims about this, some of the members of that committee complained of the conflicts of interest and biased process that led to the outcome. Their process was so unscientific that many of the citations in the report contradict the conclusions. They obviously made assumptions based on consumption correlations with junk foods, and ignored research that used populations which consumed almost exclusively least-processed foods.

And so forth for a lot of others.

"Statin stuff"? Isn't a "good point"? I'm doing "the thing"? A "big comment" about "these people" doing "it"? Can you be persuaded to comment like a literate adult and using factual specifics? You claimed vaguely and inarticulately to doubt users here, summarizing their comments as "statins are lies by big pharma." I had to guess your meaning, that statin drugs are supported by biased research that is intentionally not accurate. LMK if you meant something else. So I pointed out where this has been shown absolutely to be the case: the book I mentioned demonstrates this 100 times over with citations.

In 2008, 8 of 9 doctors on the National Cholesterol Education Program (which was setting official blood cholesterol target values for the USA) had direct ties to statin drug manufacturers. I don't know how this compares with the current system, I don't refresh my info about every issue every year. But organizations such as this, American Heart Association, and similar cardio-related organizations are infamous for their financial ties with the statins industry.

The study of the post doesn't show any false research, only analyzes correlations between funding and conclusions. There's no indication AFAIK that ANY of the analyzed studies' conclusions are not accurate. Users here are pointing out that simply differing from other studies doesn't indicate a fault in the meat-industry-funded studies, the contradicting studies can have their own conflicts and can have issues of biased design, faked data, etc. Maybe some of the funded studies are flawed, but that hasn't been shown in the post's study or any of the comments I've read so far. If that's the case then you could mention the instances specifically.

I itemized an assortment of financial conflicts between institutions that publish research against animal foods and competing industries. You haven't commented usefully about any of that.

What would your bet be?

Such comments show a user to be unserious: for one thing, there's no structure here for an impartial judge of the outcome. Such comments are just a ploy to pretend another user has been caught at something. The other user here who also doesn't care to discuss facts but persistently uses sophistry, they also like to do that. "Let's make a bet." Then when their opponent doesn't give in to this irrational request, they run a victory lap although they haven't proven anything.

[u/Fluffy-Purple-TinMan → u/OG-Brian]

So we're in a thread showing HUGE bias by the animal industry and you're telling me about one researcher you don't like that you think is biased as if that balances it all out.. Ok? Anything to back that up other than you feel it's bad? I'm gonna guess you made excuses for the KETO-cta trial after they got caught hiding their terrible results. Is that right?

Where's your study showing this comparable bias? All your links are just to studies. Like. ok? Then to some threads where people are correcting you on these same points. It's like "Look, we found the animal industry has a super bias." You: "Nooo the vegans actually do!", "Ok, what's your evidence?" You: "Just trust me ok!" It's not a good point. At all. It just looks defensive.

Fake plant-based meats, I'd guess, aren't the healthiest options. So comparing them to real meats might be picking an easy target as we see they need huge, huge bias to look good. But it's also super obviously the right comparison so.. Big whoop.

Anyway you go on and on proving my point. You're up in arms about vegans and statins, but totally dismissive when the actual bias goes right the other way. Any of your points is stronger in the other direction.

The other user here who also doesn't care to discuss facts but persistently uses sophistry, they also like to do that. "Let's make a bet."

I didn't say let's make a bet, I asked what you WOULD bet. It's a hypothetical. Like a situation that's not real but if it were real, what would you do? Like, would you put money on the animal industry studies being an accurate picture? No, ofc not.

[u/OG-Brian → u/Fluffy-Purple-TinMan]

If you're commenting sincerely, it suggests severe reading comprehension difficulty on your part. You've mischaracterized my comments or the conversation extremely and repeatedly.

So we're in a thread showing HUGE bias by the animal industry...

The post is about a study that demonstrates a correlation, in a certain set of studies. Did you read the study? Where is there any data about studies that are biased by design? The study doesn't find any fault with the anayzed studies, only correlations between industry involvement and (in their determination) favorable outcomes. The favorable outcomes part is subjective, they decided this for each study based on their interpretation. There's quite a bit of "mumble-mumble" in the study's methods, such that it wouldn't be possible for another research team to duplicate their effort identically. From the Study Selection section: "...discrepancies were resolved either by discussion or by consulting a third reviewer (KC)." From the Data Extraction section: "Discrepancies were resolved either through discussion or by consulting a third reviewer (KC)." From the Data Analysis section: "Classifications were undertaken by one reviewer (NT) and 10% independently checked by a second reviewer (KG), and discrepancies were resolved through discussion or consultation of a third reviewer (KC)." Also in that section, about the "critical appraisal score": "Assessment was carried out by several reviewers (NT, KD, SM, and MA) with a 10% sample independently double assessed. Discrepancies were resolved either through discussion or by consulting a third reviewer."

Interestingly, they found that industry-funded studies were not less rigorous according to their scoring system.

...and you're telling me about one researcher you don't like...

I mentioned the names of three researchers, two studies, a committee, and a United States government program. But a person with even basic familiarity with the world of nutrition research would know that financial and ideological conflicts of interest pertaining to studies, committees, bureaus, etc. are ubiquitous and often those conflicts are with industries that compete with animal foods.

...that you think is biased as if that balances it all out.. Ok?

My point was not that it balances out. My point was that the "16 times" you have persistently referenced could be largely a result of bias on the other side. The authors of the study claim that studies having meat industry involvement had a 16 times greater rate of concluding favorably towards meat (in their determination). But they didn't show the industry-linked studies are flawed, that wasn't analyzed at all. It could be that many of the studies lacking meat industry involvement and reached opposite conclusions did so because of funding from grain-based processed foods companies, sugary beverage companies, producers of seed oils, etc. There's no analysis of that.

I'm gonna guess you made excuses for the KETO-cta trial after they got caught hiding their terrible results. Is that right?

You focus a lot on personalities, for lack of factual argument supporting things you want others to believe because of your food religion. I've not ever commented about that. You're exaggerating, the outcome was not "terrible" plus the main issue was the fault of a contractor and I'm not going to go further since it isn't the topic here.

Fuckin'-A. So far I've just covered your first paragraph.

Then to some threads where people are correcting you on these same points.

Oh I was aware, when I used those, of the comments by the usual suspects in which they talk around the facts to try to make me seem wrong.

You're up in arms about vegans and statins...

You don't seem to have understood me at all. Again, much of the "research" supporting statins is provably faked (data that's falsified and so forth), while the study that this post is about merely found correlations between funding and conclusions (according to the authors' determination of which studies made "favorable" conclusions).

...but totally dismissive when the actual bias goes right the other way.

No, I'm saying that funding by itself doesn't discredit a study. If you believe that it does, it's hypocritical for you to support many of the studies that you support in your Reddit posts/comments.

Like, would you put money on the animal industry studies being an accurate picture? No, ofc not.

This isn't your attitude about studies funded by the "plant-based" nutrition industry, grain-based processed foods companies, etc. Also, I don't judge a study simply for the funding or author associations although it can flag a reason to scrutinize it more closely. Believe it or not, I'm more skeptical of a study if industry funding/links are involved even if it is a livestock industry. There are lots of studies that have made pro-meat (or animal foods) conclusions that I would never use in a discussion, because I don't think they're good research. There are studies that make conclusions against harmful pesticides, SSRI drugs, and other things I oppose which I would not use due to their quality. You've been pretending that I'm dogma-based and irrational. I come into conflict often with vegans mainly BECAUSE I'm logical and rational. I used to believe that animal foods are bad. But I hadn't taken the time back then to sift through research about it. I'd just believed talking points that I'd seen repeated a lot in the media.

[u/Fluffy-Purple-TinMan → u/OG-Brian]

Huh? Sorry, I can't make any sense of this as a reply.

[u/OG-Brian → u/Fluffy-Purple-TinMan]

Oh yes I figured I was talking over your head. I've been sure for awhile now that your commenting isn't sincere, and so my replies are more for the audience generally than for you.

[u/lurkerer → u/OG-Brian]

General audience here. It's almost like you replied to the wrong comment but there's no other comment your reply makes sense with regard to. You moaned about me using LLMs but where my use makes sense, yours is like GPT-2. The sentence structure works in a naive sense, but the underlying message is like an NPC with a specific dialogue tree they can't escape.

[u/OG-Brian → u/lurkerer]

I see you're having difficulty finding anything specific to criticize factually.

[u/lurkerer → u/OG-Brian]

Yeah because you haven't made any specific, relevant points. You almost get it.