this post was submitted on 21 May 2025
579 points (97.7% liked)

science

18664 readers
441 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
m3t00@lemmy.world
Joleee@lemmy.world
laverabe@lemmy.world
DeadPand@midwest.social
laverabe@lemmy.zip
579
Is red meat bad for health? Meta-study of 44 studies finds results depend on the sponsor. If the sponsor is impartial, studies find it's bad. Studies sponsored by the meat industry find the opposite (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by dwazou@lemm.ee to c/science@lemmy.world
106 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] witty_username@feddit.nl 113 points 2 days ago (2 children)

And this is yet another reason why we need independent science funding, kids

[–] Scolding7300@lemmy.world 28 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Science has been canceled until 2028

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Found the American.

[–] Scolding7300@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

True, but also want to emphasize that this has worldwide implications, the NIH is a major contributor to clinical research. Probably more harmful if it produces garbage data than less data

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Independent of whom/what?

[–] witty_username@feddit.nl 6 points 1 day ago
  1. Industry
  2. Politics
  3. Excessive earmarking
  4. Your mom
[–] M137@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago

Seriously? Independent from anything and anyone that has an interest in the results going any specific way. How is that not obvious?