material_methods

Honestly did you even read the news article you linked or the "Report of Partial Findings" (the words of the report, not mine) that the editorialized news article links to?

From the Report of Partial Findings, page 36:

There were no statistically significant differences in rates of gliomas or schwannomas in females; also there was no statistically significant increase in rates of gliomas in males exposed to GSM RFR.

Page 37:

6) Summary: I am unable to accept the authors’ conclusions:

a. We need to know all other findings of these experiments (mice, other tumor types) given the risk of false positive findings and reporting bias. It would be helpful to have a copy of the authors’ statistical code.

b. We need to know whether randomization was employed to assign dams to specific groups (control and intervention).

c. We need to know whether randomization was employed to determine which pups from each litter were chosen for continued participation in the experiment.

d. We need to know whether there was a formal power/sample size calculation performed prior to initiation of the experiment. If not, why not? If yes, we need to see the details. In particular, we need to know whether the authors followed the recommendations of the FDA guidance document (in particular Table 13).

e. I suspect that this experiment is substantially underpowered and that the few positive results found reflect false positive findings. 2 The higher survival with RFR, along with the prior epidemiological literature, leaves me even more skeptical of the authors’ claims.

Yes I understand the peer review process and yes I understand the fact that the reviewers are supposed to tear into a paper before it is released, but an incomplete, impartial report with this many fundamental flaws being held up as 'evidence' or as a 'scientific finding' or 'scientific paper' is disingenuous and pandering.

I am a research scientist myself and you are a disgrace to our field. Genuinely, I do not understand how someone with your level of intellectual rigor got into Harvard or Harvard Medical School and the fact that you did tarnishes the school's reputation. My only hope is that you stay in politics because the slight chance you could be someones physician scares me; I wouldn't want a physician in my neighborhood who panders to conspiracy theories and then doesn't have the intellectual capacity to read the editorialized 'scientific' news articles they are linking to as 'evidence'.

Do you think the USDA subsidizing frozen food is partly to blame with this? If a school wants to cook fresh, they have to buy the ingredients without help from the federal government