Read “Science, Psuedoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat”. You may find it helpful to jot down some of your gut reactions to the article as you read – keep in mind your role as a healthy skeptic, and don’t be afraid to agree with him. Participate in the following discussion by addressing the following points about several of Taubes’ key arguments:
The magnitude of association for the cited nutritional epidemiology study by Willett et al. is very small. Given what you know about how bias can affect the measure of association and therefore what we infer from a study’s findings, do you agree with Taubes’ assertion that small risks essentially mean the absence of risk? Why or why not?
Taubes repeats his mantra that experimental studies are the only way to determine what factors are causal for a health endpoint. Given what you know about study designs and bias, what might you say to refute his opinion? Provide clear and specific examples in your response.
