u/lurkerer

I'm curious as to everyone's nutrition science predictions in the near to medium future. Let's say within the next 50 years.

Inspired by a user who, as is rather common here, thinks LDL is not a causal risk factor for ASCVD and that the converging lines of evidence are merely correlations. Fair enough! But given the progressive nature of science and the huge incentives to publish a groundbreaking, paradigm-shifting study like disproving the LDL model, it shouldn't take too long!

Doubly so if your AGI horizon isn't too far off. A hyper-intelligence should be able to smooth out the remaining confusion pretty soon after it's established.

If anyone is confident enough, do please pick your favourite prediction market and set up a bet. The more niche the better for you as the odds will lean in your favour! Might be able to get a 100x return on something like LDL being overturned.

Of course, part of the motivation here for the conspiracy theorists and similar users is seeing if they have genuine confidence in their positions or if they think "they" have science in such a chokehold the truth will never out.

Study link.

> ABSTRACT > > Introduction > > The meat industry's role in funding and influencing scientific research raises concerns about its impact on evidence used to inform public health policy. Although industry influence on other food and beverage sectors is well-documented, its effects on studies of meat consumption remain understudied. > > Objective > > This study aimed to investigate the influence of meat industry involvement on study conclusions of research examining the health impacts of meat consumption. > > Methods > > A meta-research review of relevant studies published between 2014 and 2023 was conducted using PubMed and Scopus. Studies investigating the nutritional health impacts of meat consumption were included. Study characteristics, author affiliations, declared funding sources, declared conflicts of interest, and study conclusions were extracted. Association tests were used to assess the relationship between industry ties and study conclusions. > > Results > > Of 500 included studies, 78 (15.6%) reported industry involvement. Studies with industry ties were 16 times more likely to report favorable conclusions regarding meat consumption (odds ratio [OR] = 16.4, 95% CI: 7.5–35.8), and there was a significant association (p < 0.001) between industry involvement and study conclusion. > > Conclusion > > Meat industry involvement significantly increases the likelihood of favorable study conclusions in nutrition research. These findings underscore the need for caution when interpreting research funded or associated with the meat industry and emphasize the importance of minimizing conflicts of interest in nutrition research. >

A user here recently claimed:

> Observational studies like this one get the result the author chose. They can choose to get a result that matches RCT results, or not.

Said user denies that this counts as fraudulently (even in the colloquial sense) altering data in order to achieve a desired result. Despite the fact that even in the most charitable interpretation this is just outright motivated p-hacking if not outright making up data.

The user further claims that researchers around the world purposefully choose certain results to maintain a status quo. Despite the fact that publish-or-perish dynamics would heavily favour an exciting, new result.

So, does this sort of claim constitute severe, deliberate misconduct or something else (they were very unclear what else I'm afraid).