271–280 of 395 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is false equivancy. We would need to view that on an individual basis. Just because we have done it for one type of drug, doesn't mean the concerns are the same for another type. This is especially true when considering alternatives during evaluation.
No one is suggesting doing this with every drug, only this one. Straw man.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Paternity fraud is if it becomes a He said she said about how she became pregnant. See the whole NBA condom controversy.
I can see your description being relevant, but at that point you should probably be getting video testimony of consent before engaging in sex, preferably with a notary type witness. I am just half joking, I do not really know what any other solution would be to a he said she said scenario.
As a woman, I fear most people don't understand how much hormonal birth control can increase blood clots, cancer risk, mood changes, and all sorts of side effects. There doesn't seem to be a free lunch when it comes to biological modifications. :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because, naturally, humans can only be informed about a single topic: their career. Therefore, programmers are only capable of being knowledgeable about programming. And doctors are only capable of being knowledgable about medicine. And plumbers are only informed about plumbing topics. Really?
Thanks for this... It's kind of funny considering I've probably done as much reading on nutrition science the past 5-7 years as I have programming (almost 30 years into this career). Mostly in that there's been so much mis/disinformation regarding food and nutrition over the past couple centuries, and I have a lot of health issues as a result. I bring the above up, because even a lot of doctors are ill informed. Not…
"Not to mention nutritionists that are institutionally trained in dogma first, for licensure."
Nutritionist is not a protected title in the US or Australia, and actually requires no training whatsoever. It does require training and licensure to become a dietitian, because it's a clinically focused role. In many cases dietitians have prescribing privileges and are prescribing recipes for intravenous or tube fed nutrition.
That's why they're so heavily regulated my dude, I promise you clinically focused dietitians are not using the kind of industry research you're talking about. They are following protocols established over decades of clinical practice.
And if you're wondering why doctors are ill informed, it's because they're not typically trained in nutrition outside of the basics (outside of gastroentorology). Modern medical teams rely on a ton of support staff, one of those being clinical dietitians. Your doctor's job is to know who to consult.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am under 30. At current trajectory, my government (USA) will be unable to fund social security, medicaid, and medicare to care for me in my old age due to worsening working-youth:retired-elderly population ratio. I am concerned about unsustainable tax burden on the next generation youth. This problem will be worse in countries which don't attract immigrants.
Why are you suggesting that problem is caused by contraceptives? Birth rates in industrialized nations are cratering because the social and economic conditions in these countries have evolved to be fundamentally hostile to those who choose to have children. Pregnant women are almost universally punished by their employers especially in the private sector, childcare costs have gone through the roof, while the "career…
This is a bigger deal than it might seem. When birth control pills arrived in the 1960s, they were seen as a tool of liberation that would free women from forced pregnancy. Then the pope came out against them in 1968: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pill-po... That caused a population explosion everywhere, but especially Central and South America, which were predominantly Catholic. IMHO it all co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trans men and nonbinary people can take norgestrel, the language used is just following standard medical language.
That language has been "standard" for what, about a year or two? Forgive people for being confused.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> If men do not want kids, it is easy for them not to. Weird to see the "your CHOICE was when you CHOSE to have sex!" anti-abortion argument re-purposed in this way, but, OK.
Ideally, men would be equal in this regard, but nature does not work like that so we have to work with what we have.
If you can come up with a better solution that does not violate a woman’s autonomy over their body and also does not let men off the hook for providing for their kids, I am all ears (or eyes I guess).
Perhaps the government provides for everyone’s kids?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good time to remind people that tylenol dosages as written on the bottle are just within the safety window to avoid toxicity[1]. Having done the math myself, you can't even take the extra strength stuff at the recommended timing without skipping a dose each day. Drugs, even OTC ones, have very real risks, and gatekeeping BC is laughable given the risks of not having it freely available. [1] https://www.health.harvard…
Tylenol/paracetamol/acetaminophen also barely works. It increases the effectiveness of an aspirin and caffeine combo to relieve headaches (but not migraines). It’s generally ineffective against chronic pain, back pain, and severe pain. It’s a weak fever reducer. It’s one of the most popular medications in the world and its use isn’t especially supported by science. To the point of this thread, don’t mistake official…
Ibuprofen is in almost all ways a better drug overall for parents/home use, but because of some rare reaction to it, it's not suggested until 6 months, so most parents assume Tylenol is "safer" and never switch over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At what point does one cross this arbitrary barrier to being proficiently knowledgable in a subject outside their profession? I'm a self taught developer with nearly three decades of experience, still spending 10+ hours a week expanding my craft (reading/experimenting). But in the past 5-7 years have spent twice that time on food and nutrition science study. Part of that understanding research quality, not just quant…
So you believe all of that time you put in suggests that you know more about the subject of food and nutrition? To put it another way: if you could have acquired all of that knowledge without spending so much time and effort, then why didn't you?
I'm not sure what you are asking exactly. The initial response above seems to indicate that a person shouldn't speak on something outside their primary career. So my question is, at what point is one able to pass the bar of being able to speak to a subject materially?