261–270 of 281 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Epidemiological study supports assertions of those funding the study" Does that not seem problematic to you?
It might be if the Gates Foundation had funded the study. https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s1291...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
You imbecile. Don't straw man me. No one is talking about qualifications. Did you elect these bureaucrats? Did you consent to whatever it is they claim to be doing? Did your parents or grandparents? I certainly did not and neither did my family. Unlike monarchies, WHO and the like have NO skin in the game . If monarchs f it up, it is their and their family's life on the line. In democracies there are elections. If th…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You imbecile. Don't straw man me. No one is talking about qualifications. Did you elect these bureaucrats? Did you consent to whatever it is they claim to be doing? Did your parents or grandparents? I certainly did not and neither did my family. Unlike monarchies, WHO and the like have NO skin in the game . If monarchs f it up, it is their and their family's life on the line. In democracies there are elections. If th…
Arrant nonsense. We get it. You hate authority AND science.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I deny it. I just disproved your assertion. Bill Gates spends lots of his money trying to develop technologies such as clean burning stoves for developing countries, inexpensive toilets for the same, funding advanced nuclear technology. How is this shoving it down our throats? Your single sentence is brimming with emotion: belittling him with the batman moniker, shoving it down our throats, whatever the fuck, scare q…
He is doing it by force. Paying ads, paying politicians, paying experts, paying democratic party, insisting on vaccines, insisting on removing meat (have you seen healthy athletic vegans ? extremely rare). You have to look at things that he wants to be applied by force, not things that he "generously creates and you can optionally use it". If I want to eat meat and Bill wants to raise taxes on meat by force (using hi…
Those don't sound very forceful to me. When you said "by force" I was expecting him to have Men With Guns raiding the houses of meat eaters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if that were true, what kind of issue would that be if Bill Gates wanted people to get fewer easily preventable illnesses?
There’s zero hard evidence that red meat consumption leads to bad health outcomes. It’s all epidemiological fud. Why are people so comfortable with billionaires telling them how to live?
Has it occurred to you that billionaires can be using their resource for good? In your cynical world nothing can ever get done because ordinary people don't have the resources to do good, and the people who are resourced and want to do good are shooed away because people like you
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Epidemiological study supports assertions of those funding the study" Does that not seem problematic to you?
“Problematic” being the catch all term to throw out rather than make an actual claim. Was the study faulty? Was the funding clandestine or did they attempt to conceal it? Does the Gates foundation support meat reduction for ideological reasons, rather than evidence based ones? Is The Gates foundation an industry that has a vested interest in continuing that industry (like an oil company funding oil benefit studies),…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Food surveys and food diaries are hilariously bad[1]. I'm surprised any studies based on them are still getting published. There was literally a reality TV show in England based around how terribly inaccurate food diaries are. It's on YouTube[2]. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4527547/figure/... [2] https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=secret+eaters
To further concur, when I was engineering my own body composition improvement plan I quickly learned to completely ignore any study that wasn’t performed in a controlled metabolic ward. Which is, essentially, a voluntary prison. Needless to say participant compensation is considerably more costly than the totally unscientific alternatives so such studies are rare.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a similar way, if you reduce your meat consumption by 80%, you're 80% of the way to the environmental benefits of a wholly vegan diet. Isn't it easier to convince someone to reduce their meat intake than to eliminate it completely?
Probably not. My favorite trivia here is a study which documented that, of people who self-describe as "vegetarian", one third will admit to having eaten meat in the past one (1) week.
A week has 21 meals. If you eat 3 types of food per meal, you will make 63 food choices per week. A person can choose meat for one of those 63 choices (1.6%) and still be a vegetarian. Many folks choose meat for 30% or more of their diet.
Almost all studies of this kind are extremely confounded because food survey data is close to universally bad. It is especially bad on this topic in the US and UK, because many people's idea of a serving of meat is actually closer to fried breaded bread, with condiment levels of meat on top. It would be crazy to lump those people in with the "steak and eggs for dinner 3 times a week" crowd, but they always are. Resul…
The bit about a vegetarian diet being associated with a higher incidence of cancer is kind of jarring to me. As I've always heard that leaning more towards whole/raw foods and more vegetables were better for avoiding cancer. Now that may be because of your top point, most of the meat consumed in the US is processed in some way. I think the biggest culprit of meat-related cancer (?) is preserved meats. I don't know. I…
[0] https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/blog/the-sick-quitter-effec...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you would like organ meats but don't like the texture there are meat pills that contain an equal portion of each organ type that are desiccated. These [1] are the ones I use. [1] - https://shop.ancestralsupplements.com/collections/frontpage/...
Fantastic. Thank you very much. Any idea how many you should take daily? I didn't really see anything on that page, although judging by the amount of capsules per bottle, I would assume 6 per day? 180 caps / 30 days = 6?