this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2025
122 points (94.2% liked)

Asklemmy

47732 readers
1462 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
122
How did we get so casual about conspiracy theories? (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
59 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

How did we get so casual about conspiracy theories?

I was talking with someone today about nutrition. This person has a PhD in material science. They mentioned eating beef daily and I asked about the cholesterol implications. The answer was about a vague 'they' wanted us to think that, but it wasn't true anymore.

I hear the vague 'they' so frequently now it's just a normal conversation. In truth, as soon as I hear the vague they I dismiss the speaker's credibility on the subject, but how did we get here? Vague they wanted us to think X is a valid counter argument by the most highly educated people in our society?

This sounds like more of a rant than a question, but I do truly want to know how this happened? Was it pop culture like the X Files that made conspiracy theories main stream? Was it social media? When will the vague they stop being an accepted explanation? Has it always been this way and I didn't notice?

Thanks, love you!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/saturated-fat#evidence-to-date

Not all experts agree.

  • A 2009 meta-analysis of 28 cohort studies and 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concluded β€œThe available evidence from cohort and randomised controlled trials is unsatisfactory and unreliable to make judgment about and substantiate the effects of dietary fat on risk of CHD.”
  • A 2010 meta-analysis of 21 cohort studies found no association between saturated fat intake on CHD outcomes.
  • A 2014 systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized controlled trials found that the evidence does not clearly support dietary guidelines that limit intake of saturated fats and replace them with polyunsaturated fats.
  • A 2015 meta-analysis of 17 observational studies found that saturated fats had no association with heart disease, all-cause mortality, or any other disease.
  • A 2017 meta-analysis of 7 cohort studies found no significant association between saturated fat intake and CHD death.

Plus more at the above well cited reference

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Thanks for the references.

Fair enough, seems there's not full consensus on this. Just wanted to point out that there is real science backing the idea that saturated fat is bad and it's not just some contrived myth by a bunch of politicians like OP said.