Another day another bad vegan “documentary” filled with propaganda, misrepresentation, faux-science and out-right lies. Let’s break down the new vegan hit ‘What the Health.’
Firstly the film is co-directed by Kip Andersen and Keegan Kuhn, and co-produced by actor Joaquin Phoenix
Andersen and Kuhn are the creators of another vegan netflix documentary ‘Cowspiracy.’ I think that really says it all. The pair have a history of creating vegan “documentaries” like this all filled with outright lies, bad science and
propaganda. Either Andersen, Kuhn or Phoenix (who is a vegan) have any prior education in nutritional science, medicine or health.
The netflix film claims that eating one egg is the equivalent of smoking 5 cigarettes.
I know what you must be thinking already. Woah woah what? I know, but stay with me. So where did ‘What the Health’ get this ridiculous statement come from.
extremely controversial old paper (that was published in 2012) that claimed an
association between the number of consumed egg yolks and the amount of plaque in the carotid artery, before concluding that
eating egg yolks is almost as bad as smoking when it comes to speeding up plaque deposits.
Obviously this has been debunked and disproven. It’s a rather ridiculous conclusion to come to in the first place. But it makes sense once you learn that the original study was not a clinic experiment but an observational study. An
observational study creates statistic data by using a large sample population (and where the independent variable is not in control of the researcher), and then seeing if there is a pattern or correlation in the data. They do not give cause-and-effect conclusions. They do not put into account other variables that are more likely causing the correlation, nor do they test if the correlation is significant (<0.05).
The original study also only included / surveyed for TWO variables. That’s right, only TWO. And those two were smoking and consumption of eggs. So it’s safe to say that the above study is absolutely useless, as it wasn’t even a proper clinical experiment.
Additionally recent research has further proven that cholesterol is not considered a nutrient of concern and that the kind of cholesterol you eat isn’t solidly linked to cholesterol levels in the blood.
The film claims that prominent cancer and heart charities are influenced by the food industry to cover up links between animal products and poor health.
However it states no sources for these claims. Mostly because there are none. The film makers call / show up in person to major health / food organisations to harass the call representatives with aggressive and strange questions, before claiming that the staff’s inability to answer his questions proves his point.
Misrepresents the relative and absolute cancer risks of consuming processed meat
The film claims that eating one serving of red meat a day will increase the risk of type 2 diabetes by 51%.
However actual studies find that if you eat highly processed red meat a day there is a 19% increased risk of developing diabetes. This also probably has more to do with the meat being high processed then it has to do with the actual meat content itself.
Claims that chicken is the leading cause of sodium and cholesterol in the diet
The film makes the claim that chicken is the number one leading cause of cholesterol and sodium in the average diet. The reference the film states doesn’t state anywhere in it that chicken is the leading source of cholesterol. So at this point I’m wondering if these people read anything they “source” or if they just pick research at random and slot it in when needed like an undergraduate student writing a scientific paper that’s due the next day.
Makes the claim that within minutes of eating dead meat bacteria toxins, the body gets a burst of inflammation, stiffening or paralyzing the arteries.
There is zero evidence or studies that suggest this is even a little bit true. The film uses two sources for this claim [ here | here ]. The first of which is not even a scientific study, just a video with no evidence or medical backing.
The second, although a scientific study, was conducted in vitro (it was not conducted on humans) and tested the inflammatory response to cytokine secretion. The study found that while inflammatory response increased in meat, the response of cytokine was the same in both animal and plant matter.
However the study also found that dark chocolate had a high cytokine response despite multiple other studies and research supporting chocolate as anti-inflammatory.
All the references used by the film are websites / organisations that are all partly funded by vegans
The film also relies heavily on interviews with vegan doctors, advocates and even vegan celebrities. It’s clear that none of these people are educated nutritional scientists or unbiased medical doctors. But what can you expect from a film that relies solely on lying and using outdated , misinterpreted data.
@psiotechniqa don’t tag my posts with “sjw idiocy” you absolute toenail. Go fuck yourself.
The sjw idiocy was in reference to the topic of stupid vegans lying, not about you. I index a lot of my posts like that – if the topic is related to morons doing stupid things in the name of social justice, which is what vegans do when they pull shit like this, then I tag it as SJW idiocy.
sorry for the confusion
also my toenails are impeccable, how dare you :p
you realise I’m a transgender, queer anti-captialist scientist do you? You realise by all definitions and stereotypes people like you would label me a “sjw.”
I realise the intent of your tag. My anger wasn’t at me thinking you were calling me a “sjw”. It’s the fact you’re using “sjw” as if it isn’t a buzzword to reference people like me that care and are vocal about social justice issues that usually personal and directly effect us.
Stay off my blog. Your “anti-sjw” idiocy isn’t welcome here
Netflix vegan hit ‘What the Health’ serves up lots of bad science
BettSplendens Tumblr Evac 