For years, the so-called “Physicians Committee” for Responsible Medicine, a PETA-linked organization that represents less than 1% of America’s medical doctors, has used junk science studies to push veganism. Now it’s trying to stifle new science that contradicts with its ideological agenda.
This month, the Annals of Internal Medicine released multiple articles debunking the motley of studies claiming red meat is bad for humans. In the central study, a group of 14 researchers from seven countries reviewed 61 previous studies and found minimal links between eating meat and death. In addition, it found that the studies that connected meat to cancer or heart disease had low-quality evidence.
Essentially, evidence shows the nutritional guidelines for red meat were set based on weak science and fallible studies. The problem with most nutrition studies is that they rely on food diaries and diet recall. Think about it. If you don’t remember what you ate for breakfast last Tuesday, what are the chances the study’s participants will remember either?
These studies may show an association or correlation, but not causation. And external factors like physical activity and family history often aren’t factored in.
PCRM, however, is soy-cheesed off to see anyone questioning anti-meat studies. The organization filed a petition with the Federal Trade Commission against AIM. PCRM demands the FTC prohibit the Annals from disseminating the article. That’s just anti-free speech.
Further, PCRM completely misses the point of AIM’s studies. Neal Barnard, PCRM’s founder, claims that the study is “directly at odds with abundant scientific evidence.” Gee, that’s the entire point of the study: To show that past studies don’t make a scientifically convincing case to reduce meat consumption.
PCRM may have a problem swallowing the medicine. But PCRM’s rush to stifle opposing points of view is goes against the principles of the scientific method and academic freedom.
