I'm 32, drink 6 coke zeros a day and have a 6 pack. I also eat mcdonalds on occasion and have a candy bar every now and then as well. Just make sure to balance it out with copious amounts of water
Early-life low-calorie sweetener consumption disrupts memory function in rats
51–60 of 71 posts
Re: Early-life low-calorie sweetener consumption disrupts memory function in rats
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's a strong reaction. Corporate damage control and prevention of profit loss will look pretty much the same whether they're covering something up or just correcting the record. If there's a threat to profits, an industry and corporation will usually attempt to prevent or attack it regardless of any connection to the truth.
> "just correcting the record" If that phrase isn't triggering your alarm bells, I don't know what to tell you... > "If there's a threat to profits, an industry and corporation will usually attempt to prevent or attack it regardless of any connection to the truth." Oh okay, you do get it lol. The thing is though, it doesn't have to be like this. We allow it to be at our own mortal peril, and that isn't even remotely…
"Correcting the record" isn't inherently malicious, and a company attacking something does not indicate a likely cover up. That reasoning is overly cynical and fallacious. I'm no fan of corporations or overlarge industries (and their respective lobbyists), but the way I see them is like large organisms. They are neither good nor evil, simply consumed by self-preservation and the drive to thrive.
Re: Early-life low-calorie sweetener consumption disrupts memory function in rats
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "just correcting the record" If that phrase isn't triggering your alarm bells, I don't know what to tell you... > "If there's a threat to profits, an industry and corporation will usually attempt to prevent or attack it regardless of any connection to the truth." Oh okay, you do get it lol. The thing is though, it doesn't have to be like this. We allow it to be at our own mortal peril, and that isn't even remotely…
"Correcting the record" isn't inherently malicious, and a company attacking something does not indicate a likely cover up. That reasoning is overly cynical and fallacious. I'm no fan of corporations or overlarge industries (and their respective lobbyists), but the way I see them is like large organisms. They are neither good nor evil, simply consumed by self-preservation and the drive to thrive.
questions of good and evil aside, these sorts of organisms have subsumed human beings into a new composite apex predator
paperclip maximizers are real, they're made of code and people
Re: Early-life low-calorie sweetener consumption disrupts memory function in rats
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Oh shit, these people are probably trying to cover something up." Was that also your reaction when Youtube shut down anti-vax videos and videos promoting dangerous Covid "cures"? Sometimes, even if you know something is false, it is helpful to nip misinformation in the bud.
So, now that it’s been admitted that testing for immunological blocking response (ya know, “immunization”, the thing vaccines used to do) was NOT done by Pfizer, and testing for risk to human reproduction was NOT done at all — are you still glad that everyone shut down debate about risks? What else do you “know” is false or true, that even those who created the thing are unaware of? Your position seems to reflect an…
They did test that the vaccine reduced risk of transmission and contraction of the disease, and testing for fertility didn't make sense anyway (and recent studies verify that it has no effect on fertility anyway) so I don't know why anybody who isn't grasping at straws would bring up anything of that sort in the first place.
I am glad that they shut down foolish misinformation like that, which is only designed to mislead people into being anxious about nothing in an effort to spread FUD about vaccines.
Re: Early-life low-calorie sweetener consumption disrupts memory function in rats
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Correcting the record" isn't inherently malicious, and a company attacking something does not indicate a likely cover up. That reasoning is overly cynical and fallacious. I'm no fan of corporations or overlarge industries (and their respective lobbyists), but the way I see them is like large organisms. They are neither good nor evil, simply consumed by self-preservation and the drive to thrive.
questions of good and evil aside, these sorts of organisms have subsumed human beings into a new composite apex predator paperclip maximizers are real, they're made of code and people
I agree entirely, but it's not relevant to my point. Understanding the problems with an entity is completely different from assuming that every bad rumor about that entity is true, or taking the position that the entity can never actually be right.
You can't fight problems from a position that doesn't consider things realistically. You just lump yourself in with all the other raving conspiracy theorists.
Re: Early-life low-calorie sweetener consumption disrupts memory function in rats
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
questions of good and evil aside, these sorts of organisms have subsumed human beings into a new composite apex predator paperclip maximizers are real, they're made of code and people
I agree entirely, but it's not relevant to my point. Understanding the problems with an entity is completely different from assuming that every bad rumor about that entity is true, or taking the position that the entity can never actually be right. You can't fight problems from a position that doesn't consider things realistically. You just lump yourself in with all the other raving conspiracy theorists.
Fair, I don't think we disagree
Re: Early-life low-calorie sweetener consumption disrupts memory function in rats
#57Re: Early-life low-calorie sweetener consumption disrupts memory function in rats
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, now that it’s been admitted that testing for immunological blocking response (ya know, “immunization”, the thing vaccines used to do) was NOT done by Pfizer, and testing for risk to human reproduction was NOT done at all — are you still glad that everyone shut down debate about risks? What else do you “know” is false or true, that even those who created the thing are unaware of? Your position seems to reflect an…
They did test that the vaccine reduced risk of transmission and contraction of the disease, and testing for fertility didn't make sense anyway (and recent studies verify that it has no effect on fertility anyway) so I don't know why anybody who isn't grasping at straws would bring up anything of that sort in the first place. I am glad that they shut down foolish misinformation like that, which is only designed to mis…
Although they have recently admitted that the vaccine does not, in fact, reduce the risk of transmission - which might call their testing into question, no?
Re: Early-life low-calorie sweetener consumption disrupts memory function in rats
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was this comment made by GPT-3 too? See this user’s profile for why I’m asking.
If that’s a bot, the owner is running GPT with prompts so specific they might as well submit them as comments.
Training a GPT-like model on the HN archive would probably yield good results, using the respective ancestor comment(s) as a prompt.
Re: Early-life low-calorie sweetener consumption disrupts memory function in rats
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, now that it’s been admitted that testing for immunological blocking response (ya know, “immunization”, the thing vaccines used to do) was NOT done by Pfizer, and testing for risk to human reproduction was NOT done at all — are you still glad that everyone shut down debate about risks? What else do you “know” is false or true, that even those who created the thing are unaware of? Your position seems to reflect an…
They did test that the vaccine reduced risk of transmission and contraction of the disease, and testing for fertility didn't make sense anyway (and recent studies verify that it has no effect on fertility anyway) so I don't know why anybody who isn't grasping at straws would bring up anything of that sort in the first place. I am glad that they shut down foolish misinformation like that, which is only designed to mis…
Bless you, but it's surreal to have such a discussion in a forum that purports to attract interesting discussion on technical topics.
Perhaps you missed the Pfizer's admission to the EU parliament that they did no such testing.
The fact that governments, researchers and medical professionals worldwide claimed they did test effectiveness against transmission (and thus claimed moral high-ground in forcing these prophylactic treatments which do not include immunization), when in fact they did NOT test, will go down as one of the most catastrophic blunders in the history of public medicine.
Trust in public medicine programs -- and, tragically, public vaccination programs in particular, has been destroyed, perhaps for generations.
And it is due, in no small part, to catastrophic hubris such as revealed here.
FUD about vaccines is now rampant because the extreme testing, care and attention they usually undergo was short-circuited. The resultant outcome of unnecessary carnage will be squarely on the shoulders of those responsible for this outrageous lack of scientific humility.