Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Let's follow the money.

Said "scientific study" is funded by Wellcome. An arm of WHO, unelected crisis manufacturer supreme. On wellcome's site:

"Reducing meat intake, particularly in the USA where meat consumption is highest, should be a global priority."

Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome.



>This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust, Our Planet Our Health (Livestock, Environment and People - LEAP) [grant number 205212/Z/16/Z]; Cancer Research UK [grant numbers C8211/A19170 and C8211/A29017]; and the UK Medical Research Council [grant number MR/M012190/1]. AP-C is supported by a Cancer Research UK Population Research Fellowship [grant number C60192/A28516] and by the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF UK), as part of the WCRF International grant programme [grant number 2019/1953].

And cancer research. But you didn't bring that up.

edit: Also not "An arm of WHO", they partner with them cause priorities (public health) are aligned.


Can you link to the part of Wellcome being against meat consumption? They look like a charity about vaccination or such?

I couldn't find anything here about meat consumption:

https://wellcome.org/about-us


The page on the site with the specific quote by GP is here: https://wellcome.org/grant-funding/people-and-projects/grant...

You may already realize this but if you type

site:wellcome.org "Reducing meat intake, particularly in the USA where meat consumption is highest, should be a global priority."

into Google you'll find it.


thanks, didn't know that.


I don't get the unhealthy obsession with "unelected" in some people.

A proper -mediocracy- meritocracy (i.e. it's actual skills and qualification that counts) is preferable over any kind of popularity contest. That's not to say the WHO in particular works by this standard, I just find it very irritating if people insist on every position or institution - especially very specialised ones - being subject to elections.

That just doesn't make sense and can have horrifying consequences (see [1] for an example). There are positions (in my example: medical examiners), that simply cannot be adequately filled by laypeople and amateurs. That's not how a complex society works. It's not the middle ages anymore and most professions and many official positions require training, experience, and qualifications.

That's why I don't get the obsession with everyone needing to be "elected" (and by that I assume you mean by the general public, because WHO positions in particular are in fact awarded by elections).

[1] https://youtu.be/hnoMsftQPY8?t=277


> A proper mediocracy

While I think mediocracy is more accurate, I think you meant "meritocracy".


Indeed I did - thanks for the correction!


[flagged]


We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines. This kind of thing isn't allowed here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.


[flagged]


Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only takes this us further into hell.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: