No health claim is ever proven. Even with overwhelming evidence for a claim we can't really say it's proven. At best we can say we have very high confidence, supported by a lot of data.
Further, what exactly are we supposed to believe? Should we read the NY Times or Nature and just accept that what gets published there is the absolute truth? As we know, many paradigms have been overturned over the years- sometimes requiring heroic efforts to change the status quo. Many of the health claims about cholesterol, fat intake, and other diet/nutrition have turned out to be less important that originally believed.
There are a few exceptions and even then I wouldn't call them "proof". For example, smoking causes cancer- we have enough evidence to safely conclude actual causality (multiple replicated double-blind experiments).
They really picked a strange set of claims to ask people about.
- For the protein one, it's too general of a question. Some plant proteins aren't complete proteins while others are, and animal proteins can range from super-healthy oily fish to less-healthy bacon.
- The next three are more standard "almost certainly false" claims that would make sense to ask in a survey like this.
- The acetaminophen/autism thing was in headlines recently with lots of people either hyping it up or trying to discredit it. It's hard to say anything is clear either way, but it isn't completely outrageous to believe this one.
- Finally, "vaccines are used for population control" is just an outright conspiracy theory and not even mainstream for "false health claims."
Lumping different types of questions together like this is like saying "more than 70% of people believe that butter isn't as bad as we thought or that the moon landing was faked."
>People disagree on a bunch of extremely politicized topics within the realm of nutrition and health which is famously complex and hard to understand even for experts in the field.
One thing that would help, and that I don't see addressed here is "avoid taking public positions on divisive issues that are not absolutely clear and directly linked to your area of expertise."
It's hard to tell what the correct public health play is. Take the controversial mask issue. Anthony Fauci on why he didn't say that masks would be effective said:
> Well, the reason for that is that we were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply. And we wanted to make sure that the people namely, the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected
As a public health official, perhaps you want to create an outcome like this by ensuring that you sacrifice some number of unknown people in order to preserve the capacity to fight the disease (and perhaps through doing that, save untold more people, including the people who are originally placed at risk). That will make sense to anyone who has played an RTS, I suppose. But if you're the guy about to be sacrificed, you are less likely to be thrilled about it. Trying to solve a collective action problem is hard, so I won't claim to knowing what I'd do in his position.
However, one way or another, each individual is going to look at that and conclude "sometimes the government will not tell me the truth in order that society may make it and they'll say I'm wrong and not following science to make sure I go along with it" and some individuals will say "okay, we need to take some risk to go along with the thing" and maybe another will say "no, fuck you, tell me the truth" and so on. I think this particular cat is out of the bag.
Once it's made obvious to people that the things you're telling them may not be entirely truthful so that you can create an outcome you want, they won't trust you. I lean on the side of being entirely truthful and appealing to the better angels of people's nature. But I'm an armchair quarterback. Hard to play it back and see what would have happened, or if we were in the counterfactual world with a Spanish Flu like disease that killed the working age more.
It's interesting they didn't ask questions like whether people believed that the COVID vaccine prevented transmission of the virus. The number might have been even more staggering.
The real hard thing is accepting that people are going to make different decisions and get different outcomes.
I believe a lot of crazy health stuff because in my N=1 story, they work and drive results. This where I polarize people because I only eat meat, love raw cheese or a2 cheese. I have fixed so many problems.
My wife has also fixed a large number of problems such that her MS is so much more manageable and life quality is great.
Whatever science someone has has to contend with lives stories, and i no longer care to bother to believe centralized science. I want a thousand experiments to run where the results are life and death.
Anecdotally this is common also between anti-vaxxers or vaccine skeptics or what have you. It makes sense because those ideas really form a continuum that is basically denying the Germ Theory of Disease, i.e. the knowledge that humanity has acquired in the last couple hundred years that there exist micro-organisms that are the direct causal agents of some diseases. It's like a return to the bad parts of the Middle Ages were people got sick and died and nobody could tell why.
It's also a particularly dangerous belief to hold. People have destroyed their own kids' kidneys for life with it: drinking raw milk infected with Shiga-toxin producing E-coli can cause Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS) which particularly affects children with under-developed immune systems, and which can really destroy young ones' kidneys [1,2]. It's insane and heartbreaking and infuriating and omg I cannot think of anything more terrifying than living with the knowledge that I've caused so much harm to my own children because I was too stupid to understand the risks and thought I was doing them good [3].
>> “There has definitely been a growing number of people who question widely accepted scientific evidence,” agrees Heidi Larson, who studies confidence in vaccines at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. “It’s important to pay attention to.”
OK but this I really have to push back on. Who the hell really knows and understands "the scientific evidence"? When you start throwing around shibboleths like that, that's when people lose the plot and think they're doing the right thing and "doing their own research" and so on. Scientists train for years to be able to understand "the scientific evidence". The lay public can't be expected to have the same ability. You have to take scientists at their word.
And that means that scientists have the responsibility to build trust. I don't know how that's done. Thank god I'm only a computer scientist and my work can hardly poison or kill anyone, I mean unless someone ends up running my software on a kamikaze drone or something [4].
And anyway science is a debate and "the scientific evidence" keeps changing year after year. My friend tells this story where her two grandmothers, one a farmer (though well-educated), the other a biologist, were talking about ... eggs. Grandmother A, the farmer, had hens and one year Grandmother B, the biologist, advised her to wash the eggs because the latest scientific evidence was that this reduced the risk of food-borne illnesses. A few years later, Grandmother B told Grandmother A that the scientific evidence had changed and it was now considered riskier to wash eggs because that could cause contaminants to permeate the shell. "So better stop washing them" said Grandmother B. "Oh, don't worry", said Grandmother A, "I never started washing them anyway".
The very first example that this study says is "false or unproven" uses ambiguous language at best:
> Animal protein is healthier than plant-based protein.
All commonly consumed sources of animal protein (meat, poultry, fish, eggs, dairy, etc.) are complete proteins, meaning they provide all essential amino acids. This is not true for all sources of plant-based protein. In addition, "protein" as is often used to indicate a part of a meal (I mean not just the technical definition of a chain of amino acids). Vegans are nearly always advised to supplement with B12 because good plant protein sources like legumes are poor sources of B12.
I understand what the study is getting at with the question, for as far as I am aware there are no studies that show that getting, say, 10 grams of complete protein from animals is any different from getting 10 grams of complete protein from plants. Still, given this question is easily ambiguous for valid definitions of "healthier", I find this study suspect, despite having no problem with the general idea that tons of people believe absolute batshit insane ideas about health and nutrition.
For me wildest one is vegan diet, i.e. Bryan Johnson stays away from animal products, while levelsio mostly eats meat. Both track their biomarkers and seem to be extremely fit.
Personally I have to fight my entire country (and most of Eastern Europe fwiw) that cold weather, drafts, air conditioning, wet hair and cold feet does not cause common cold or flu. Yes there is rhinorrhea, but that's just reaction to change in air's humidity.
Staggering number of people believe in weird things. I'm not talking about someone claiming mask mandates were useful, useless or harmful - there's a lot of debate around it and without spending lots of time looking at studies, you might be misled. I don't even know about masks. I'm leaning towards "useful", but wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't.
I'm talking about superstitions, fortune tellers, homeopathy, anti-evolution, anti-vaxx (not specific arguments against a specific vaccine, but in general), magic, fake healers, obviously fake medical info (bleach, etc.) guardian angels, gods, karma, ESP, ghosts, spirits, quantum bullshit, bad energy, miracles, lizard people, telepathy and all that crap.
It makes me incredibly pessimistic about humans. Of course, most people don't believe in all of the above, but I've noticed people either believe in none of the above, or in several the above - rarely just 1 thing.
Unrelated, but on page 3 it mentions:
> 2023 - Many young people feel the average person can know as much as a doctor
Not as BFS knowledge, but as DFS about something specific - sure. I've caught many doctors not knowing basic things about something specific. They know more than me in general, but about that specific things they're read 5 papers over the last 2 years and I've read 20 over the past month. Even accounting for their ability to better extract valuable data from papers, it's still easy to know more than a doctor about that SPECIFIC thing. The inquisitive and humble doctors review the papers and agree with me or they point out what I'm missing or where I'm wrong. The ignorant and arrogant doctors outright tell me that I'm a layman, that I shouldn't roleplay as a doctor and that I should follow their advice blindly.
Finally, can some explain:
> I will believe a recommendation that contradicts my beliefs from a source I trust
with the options being:
- After I hear it one time
- After I hear it two or more times
- I will never believe it is true
I wouldn't trust a recommendation based only on the number of times I've heard it. I may be more inclined to consider it the more I hear it, of course, which can lead to more trust, but it's never a direct relationship between number of times I've heard something and how likely I'd be to trust it. And the "I will never believe it is true" option is wild - "never" ever? Who seriously chose that option? Were people tired as it was one of the last questions? Come to think of it, I've heard people say "I will never change my mind on this" no matter how I clarify with "even if you get really strong evidence?". So perhaps it's true. But that whole question makes no sense to me.
14 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 35.5 ms ] threadFurther, what exactly are we supposed to believe? Should we read the NY Times or Nature and just accept that what gets published there is the absolute truth? As we know, many paradigms have been overturned over the years- sometimes requiring heroic efforts to change the status quo. Many of the health claims about cholesterol, fat intake, and other diet/nutrition have turned out to be less important that originally believed.
There are a few exceptions and even then I wouldn't call them "proof". For example, smoking causes cancer- we have enough evidence to safely conclude actual causality (multiple replicated double-blind experiments).
- For the protein one, it's too general of a question. Some plant proteins aren't complete proteins while others are, and animal proteins can range from super-healthy oily fish to less-healthy bacon.
- The next three are more standard "almost certainly false" claims that would make sense to ask in a survey like this.
- The acetaminophen/autism thing was in headlines recently with lots of people either hyping it up or trying to discredit it. It's hard to say anything is clear either way, but it isn't completely outrageous to believe this one.
- Finally, "vaccines are used for population control" is just an outright conspiracy theory and not even mainstream for "false health claims."
Lumping different types of questions together like this is like saying "more than 70% of people believe that butter isn't as bad as we thought or that the moon landing was faked."
Yup, I'm "staggered".
Recent small discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47876068 (13 points | 11 days ago | 6 comments)
Avoid politics like Codex avoids goblins.
> Well, the reason for that is that we were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply. And we wanted to make sure that the people namely, the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected
As a public health official, perhaps you want to create an outcome like this by ensuring that you sacrifice some number of unknown people in order to preserve the capacity to fight the disease (and perhaps through doing that, save untold more people, including the people who are originally placed at risk). That will make sense to anyone who has played an RTS, I suppose. But if you're the guy about to be sacrificed, you are less likely to be thrilled about it. Trying to solve a collective action problem is hard, so I won't claim to knowing what I'd do in his position.
However, one way or another, each individual is going to look at that and conclude "sometimes the government will not tell me the truth in order that society may make it and they'll say I'm wrong and not following science to make sure I go along with it" and some individuals will say "okay, we need to take some risk to go along with the thing" and maybe another will say "no, fuck you, tell me the truth" and so on. I think this particular cat is out of the bag.
Once it's made obvious to people that the things you're telling them may not be entirely truthful so that you can create an outcome you want, they won't trust you. I lean on the side of being entirely truthful and appealing to the better angels of people's nature. But I'm an armchair quarterback. Hard to play it back and see what would have happened, or if we were in the counterfactual world with a Spanish Flu like disease that killed the working age more.
I believe a lot of crazy health stuff because in my N=1 story, they work and drive results. This where I polarize people because I only eat meat, love raw cheese or a2 cheese. I have fixed so many problems.
My wife has also fixed a large number of problems such that her MS is so much more manageable and life quality is great.
Whatever science someone has has to contend with lives stories, and i no longer care to bother to believe centralized science. I want a thousand experiments to run where the results are life and death.
Oh dear, my very own pet peeve.
Anecdotally this is common also between anti-vaxxers or vaccine skeptics or what have you. It makes sense because those ideas really form a continuum that is basically denying the Germ Theory of Disease, i.e. the knowledge that humanity has acquired in the last couple hundred years that there exist micro-organisms that are the direct causal agents of some diseases. It's like a return to the bad parts of the Middle Ages were people got sick and died and nobody could tell why.
It's also a particularly dangerous belief to hold. People have destroyed their own kids' kidneys for life with it: drinking raw milk infected with Shiga-toxin producing E-coli can cause Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS) which particularly affects children with under-developed immune systems, and which can really destroy young ones' kidneys [1,2]. It's insane and heartbreaking and infuriating and omg I cannot think of anything more terrifying than living with the knowledge that I've caused so much harm to my own children because I was too stupid to understand the risks and thought I was doing them good [3].
>> “There has definitely been a growing number of people who question widely accepted scientific evidence,” agrees Heidi Larson, who studies confidence in vaccines at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. “It’s important to pay attention to.”
OK but this I really have to push back on. Who the hell really knows and understands "the scientific evidence"? When you start throwing around shibboleths like that, that's when people lose the plot and think they're doing the right thing and "doing their own research" and so on. Scientists train for years to be able to understand "the scientific evidence". The lay public can't be expected to have the same ability. You have to take scientists at their word.
And that means that scientists have the responsibility to build trust. I don't know how that's done. Thank god I'm only a computer scientist and my work can hardly poison or kill anyone, I mean unless someone ends up running my software on a kamikaze drone or something [4].
And anyway science is a debate and "the scientific evidence" keeps changing year after year. My friend tells this story where her two grandmothers, one a farmer (though well-educated), the other a biologist, were talking about ... eggs. Grandmother A, the farmer, had hens and one year Grandmother B, the biologist, advised her to wash the eggs because the latest scientific evidence was that this reduced the risk of food-borne illnesses. A few years later, Grandmother B told Grandmother A that the scientific evidence had changed and it was now considered riskier to wash eggs because that could cause contaminants to permeate the shell. "So better stop washing them" said Grandmother B. "Oh, don't worry", said Grandmother A, "I never started washing them anyway".
___________________________
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10919754/
[2] https://academic.oup.com/cid/article-abstract/48/11/1637/348...
[3] And I don't even have children.
[4] Unlikely.
> Animal protein is healthier than plant-based protein.
All commonly consumed sources of animal protein (meat, poultry, fish, eggs, dairy, etc.) are complete proteins, meaning they provide all essential amino acids. This is not true for all sources of plant-based protein. In addition, "protein" as is often used to indicate a part of a meal (I mean not just the technical definition of a chain of amino acids). Vegans are nearly always advised to supplement with B12 because good plant protein sources like legumes are poor sources of B12.
I understand what the study is getting at with the question, for as far as I am aware there are no studies that show that getting, say, 10 grams of complete protein from animals is any different from getting 10 grams of complete protein from plants. Still, given this question is easily ambiguous for valid definitions of "healthier", I find this study suspect, despite having no problem with the general idea that tons of people believe absolute batshit insane ideas about health and nutrition.
Personally I have to fight my entire country (and most of Eastern Europe fwiw) that cold weather, drafts, air conditioning, wet hair and cold feet does not cause common cold or flu. Yes there is rhinorrhea, but that's just reaction to change in air's humidity.
I'm talking about superstitions, fortune tellers, homeopathy, anti-evolution, anti-vaxx (not specific arguments against a specific vaccine, but in general), magic, fake healers, obviously fake medical info (bleach, etc.) guardian angels, gods, karma, ESP, ghosts, spirits, quantum bullshit, bad energy, miracles, lizard people, telepathy and all that crap.
It makes me incredibly pessimistic about humans. Of course, most people don't believe in all of the above, but I've noticed people either believe in none of the above, or in several the above - rarely just 1 thing.
Unrelated, but on page 3 it mentions:
> 2023 - Many young people feel the average person can know as much as a doctor
Not as BFS knowledge, but as DFS about something specific - sure. I've caught many doctors not knowing basic things about something specific. They know more than me in general, but about that specific things they're read 5 papers over the last 2 years and I've read 20 over the past month. Even accounting for their ability to better extract valuable data from papers, it's still easy to know more than a doctor about that SPECIFIC thing. The inquisitive and humble doctors review the papers and agree with me or they point out what I'm missing or where I'm wrong. The ignorant and arrogant doctors outright tell me that I'm a layman, that I shouldn't roleplay as a doctor and that I should follow their advice blindly.
Finally, can some explain:
> I will believe a recommendation that contradicts my beliefs from a source I trust
with the options being:
- After I hear it one time
- After I hear it two or more times
- I will never believe it is true
I wouldn't trust a recommendation based only on the number of times I've heard it. I may be more inclined to consider it the more I hear it, of course, which can lead to more trust, but it's never a direct relationship between number of times I've heard something and how likely I'd be to trust it. And the "I will never believe it is true" option is wild - "never" ever? Who seriously chose that option? Were people tired as it was one of the last questions? Come to think of it, I've heard people say "I will never change my mind on this" no matter how I clarify with "even if you get really strong evidence?". So perhaps it's true. But that whole question makes no sense to me.