Twitter | Search | |
Dr. Jason Fung
"A 2011 analysis of 52 claims made by nutritional epidemiology tested in 12 well controlled trials found that not one of the 52 claims—0%--could be confirmed." Good job, nutritional epidemiology, good job.
Reply Retweet Like More
Carol Anne Apr 25
Replying to @drjasonfung @Mangan150
How is this possible?
Reply Retweet Like
RunSmith Enterprises Apr 25
I’m lost here. Who’s winning this?
Reply Retweet Like
RunSmith Enterprises Apr 25
Nevermind. I see who retweeted.
Reply Retweet Like
Larry Diamond Apr 26
You’ve found one reproducible aspect of Nutritional Epidemiology: it’s Epic ability to suck for humanity. So why does and base its nutrition around it? Precisely because it can serve and say whatever someone wants it to: they are almost completely captured.
Reply Retweet Like
Peter Ballerstedt Apr 26
Replying to @drjasonfung
Thank God these imposters aren't influencing our food supply systems... Oh, wait...
Reply Retweet Like
Barbara Corkey Apr 26
Replying to @drjasonfung
Reply Retweet Like
Groundhog Apr 27
Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we all die. Enjoy !😳😬👍
Reply Retweet Like
Clay McCreary Apr 27
That's why I hate when the media reports anything scientific. They frame any little data point or observation as an overwhelming conclusion. Then, six months later another data point contradicts the 1st, and the process repeats. That's why the public doesn't believe scientists.
Reply Retweet Like