2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $8765.50Goal: $10000

Talk:Bacon

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon food.svg

This Food woo related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png

Comment[edit]

There are many things wrong with this article, including the logical fallacy of mistaking authority as evidence (citing World Health organisation instead of the actual studies).

The studies are likely to be correlational studies. The principle is that correlation does not imply causation. Many nutrition 'science' studies are correlational and are used as if causal.

No studies are cited here. There are counter studies.

This makes me doubt the seriousness of scholarship on Rational wiki (not that I am an academic).— Unsigned, by: JAvZZe / talk / contribs

Feel free to edit or add to the article: this is a wiki! Scream!! (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
The IARC publication behind this evaluation was already cited several times. I have just added it to the lede if that helps you any. IARC monographs, such as this one, are review publications (see also hierarchy of evidence) that synopsize the literature and come to a conclusion based on best available evidence. Bongolian (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)