Indeed, why would this be flagged? There's plenty of vegan stuff on this site and it's never flagged. The same argument always comes up too: "red meat causes cancer!". Now we have an article exploring that point and it's flagged so we can't discuss it. Lame.
Yes I agree, concerning that I have been following this debate for a couple of years now. And you just don't find independent studies that claim that meat is healthy.
The WHO and similar organizations are extremely conservative, so if they adopted this stance concerning meat its because there was some solid science to back it up.
I mean, they knew how people would react, and probably delayed this recommendation for a long time.
Every credible study that I see coming out, they all point in the same direction.
Check Dr Fhurman books, he is not vegan and even gives non-vegan recipes in his books. He is looking for the best human diet from a point of view of longevity and health, without ethical claims.
Just as I don't want to dismiss the OP because of the industry they are in, I also don't want to blankly believe the WHO. We should be free to discuss this and come to our own opinions and having this article flagged goes against that.
> These organizations are dedicated to the advancement and dissemination of science-based knowledge concerning animal agriculture.
This is a scientific magazine on a particular domain (animal agriculture).
Even so, this article should be discussed on its own. And its author, Dr. David M Klurfeld, is not associated with the meat industry.
If you just want to suppress discussion of health benefits of meat why not just honestly say so? After all, that's likely the motive behind this submission getting flagged.
There is an undeniable conflict between an article published in a publication financially sponsored by a given industry and the results that benefit that industry.
A study has shown that studies funded by a particular industry are 85 times more likely to bring results that favor the funding industry, so money has a huge influence.
The tobacco industry used this tactic for decades, the strategy is simple. To question the claims that a product is unhealthy, without ever actually denying it.
All they have to do is create doubt, and the public will be confused, throw their hands up in the air and eat whatever.
In the words of a famous memo leaked in the tobacco industry: "doubt is our business".
Here is a summary of the multiple tactics used by the tobacco industry, one of them is precisely to publish studies that aim at raising doubt, without actually addressing the health concerns - https://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf
But I don't know if that is why the article was taken down, I'm just speculating. Probably the flagging happens automatically, after a certain number of manual flags.
Indeed there is a lack of transparency about why certain articles are taken down, at least a reason should be given.
It has been un-flagged now, though it is no longer on the front page. Isn't it interesting how the community does its "soft censorship"? I've said this before, but the Hacker News community is increasingly biased towards vegan/ vegetarian movements, so much that they will do anything to suppress discussion of anything positive about meat.
