Home   |   Browse       NEW: (hypothetically starring) VIC REEVES as LUKE SKYWALKER .. in "Waiting for Godot, the hollywood version".

If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong - says science, says Feynman.   Share:  
Thrust of argument: Experiment is what told the WHO that 3% of cancer deaths are caused by processed meat. Direction of resistance / implied resistance: Experiment is what told the WHO that "According to the most recent estimates by the Global Burden of Disease Project, an independent academic research organization, about 34,000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to diets high in processed meat."

 

I WOULD TRADE NOW ON:
bae (at half strength)
AT APPROX 552.50 capita (at half strength)
AT APPROX 465.90 centrica AT APPROX 144.80 g4s AT APPROX 252.60 gkn AT APPROX 300.80 glencore AT APPROX 349.00 m&s AT APPROX 310.60 morrison AT APPROX 211.80 rollsroyce (at half strength)
AT APPROX 832.50 rsa (at half strength)
AT APPROX 597.00

THIS IS NOT TRADING ADVICE. CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS.

 

Enter your DOMAIN NAME to
collect this point:

 

Removal of resistance: What does this mean? Unification: It means bout 34,000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to diets high in processed meat.
Rebut this point   Support this point   Edit this point

(TVhobo's estimated size of readership since 2013, mainly in the UK and USA, with Germany in third place:
over 200,000 readers across approximately 200 cities/towns

 

Copy/paste point into your work:

Type: Open statement

Supported by points:

1.156.1

3 versions:

1. Server time: 18:22:23 on 10/9/2017
2. Server time: 17:18:17 on 1/10/2017
3. Server time: 17:30:55 on 1/10/2017

Related points:

References:

http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

 

 

previous point on the grid   |   next point on the grid

 

Click here to read about Shams Pirani, the editor and chief author on this grid - note, if you can actually prove anything written above wrong, I would gladly, if the proof is sufficient, correct what I've written and what I think - if I could, however, prove your attempted proof wrong, then I would accordingly say so and maintain whatever point of view is completely based on fact and proof.