virusrex comments

Nothing disputes the medical experts advice that following a healthy diet and exercising is the best way to maintain weight, and without those risks associated with the weight loss drugs.

What you dispute is that the drugs reduce the risks for patients that have high probability of failing the lifestyle changes, when you claim the FDA failed its purpose by approving the drugs you claim are unnecessary you are disputing the medical experts advice.

Then again you have never produced any evidence of this actually happening. No expert saying it is better or less risky letting patients fail and remain obese than using these drugs, so your claims remain disproved.

Endless loop of unnatural or mistaken content written by AI being harvested and used to train AI until all becomes just AI talking with itself about nonsense.

Mother Nature at work again.

This is as natural as a gunshot death, when something is a result of human activity (and this is) then it becomes invalid to call it natural.

No, the university came up with all manner of excuses to get rid of him, but the underlying reason was that he didn't toe the line with their position, academic freedom be damned.

And again, that is irrelevant for the merit of his claims, if a professor says the moon is made of cheese and is fired that does not make that claim less impossible either.

He was disproved repeatedly, the reference given is enough to explain how wrong he was, and you made not even an effort to refute that reference, that means it stands valid and proves the person you are choosing to believe above the world's actual experts on the field is wrong. When you choose to keep believing his claims you are doing it after it was proved to you they were wrong. That is not rational.

As someone for whom deliberate misrepresentation is your stock in trade, your post has no value.

What has not value is the daily attempt to make personal attacks instead of using arguments (mostly because you have none of them) I presented a reference where scientific arguments are given that prove his mistakes and scientific malpractice, you are not trying to disprove nameless people on the internet, you are trying to disprove many scientific publications that prove Ridd could not be more wrong.

And you have offered no argument against the scientific arguments that prove it so.

so be on your way and cease and desist from behaving as if you're this site's science fact checker.

Scientist are the ones that did that, and found him lacking deeply. Demanding people stop offering evidence of this has no merit.

It's about time nurses and carers were more fully vetted before starting work.

How would that help preventing crimes like this? do you expect hospitals to hire people based on how difficult is for them to be stabbed?

The Great Barrier Reef regularly bleaches in various areas due to various reasons including water temperature changes, and then recovers, as do other reefs like this one in Indonesia. Prof. Peter Ridd inconveniently pointed this out and was excommunicated by his employer, James Cook University, for speaking out against the narrative.

Terrible misrepresentation of the actual situation, scientists disagreeing over things is normal part of science, but being fired in no way provides proof one opinion suddenly becomes more valuable. Ridd did not disproved the "narrative" he made terribly bad arguments against the available evidence and has been debunked many times, which is expected since he is no expert on marine biology, making him prone to accept invalid assumptions and mistakes in his work. Unfortunately part of the rebuttal of his work comes from willingly committing scientific misconduct that can't be explained by trying to work outside of his field.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X18301425?via%3Dihub

Claiming research is wrong by ignoring the available controls, cherry picking only old and less powerful studies (instead of the most important ones) and making up conclusions different from the ones the authors of the reports have is not just speaking against the consensus, is lying willingly in order to secure support from known antiscientific organizations.

A downward spiral seems likely at this point. Scandals make capable people choose not to be involved with the SDF so recruiting drops, the push for militarization requires people so the SDF lower their standards and recruit people that previously would be considered unacceptable, the new recruits are more likely to cause further problems, tarnishing even more the name of the SDF and the cycle continues.

Virusrex, your ability to discern what others are unaware they know is truly remarkable. /s

When you make claims that can be demonstrated mistaken with evidence this is not something that requires any talent. Either you are unaware of something or pretending so because you have no argument against the reality.

But my original position has not changed. DEI is not the solution. Meritocracy is.

Which again depends completely on assuming the people assuming positions lack the merits to do it, which is what you personally believe without any evidence of it being the case, and worse even with evidence that this is not the case.

When you assume everybody has the same potential there is no problem with aiming for positions to be filled in the same proportion as the composition of the general population, that is the expected result, saying that DEI opposes merits only make sense for people that think some people are naturally less capable so inequalities should be expected.

It's interesting that you inferred I was suggesting women are less capable than men. My original statement clearly applied to both women and men equally.

No it does not, because the context is the article that clearly talks about the rise of women in Japanese politics. If anything you are equalizing this situation to men that obtain a position without deserving it. Once again, the comment only makes sense by assuming the subject of the article is inferior to the standard.

That said, men and women often have different skill sets and abilities in general, but this doesn't preclude individuals from excelling in areas typically dominated by the other gender.

And thinking that dominance in an area is explained by gender specific sets and abilities is a personal belief you have, not something that could be demonstrated to happen objectively for politics. As demonstrated by other countries the actual situation is that there is no gender specific difference that explain the inequalities in Japan (and other countries still trapped in previous centuries).

Remember folks, if they Didn’t Earn It, then they should t be there - woman OR man.

For this to hold any weight you need to make the assumption that women are inherently less capable than men, otherwise it would be expected for them to be represented in the same ratio as in the general population.

In short this only works in the mind of people that consider women inferior.

Hmmm, nice graphics, but it looks like a whole bunch of hypothetical ideas based on associations and assumptions but with little actual evidence

The articles included offer plenty of evidence, not acknowledging the data does nothing to disprove it. It only makes it clear you could not refute any of it and so your exit is to pretend it is not there, even when the article has been clearly peer reviewed, published and even referenced. Either the scientific community is wrong or you are, no mystery where is the mistake.

The author concludes that consuming meat increases inflammation and cardiovascular disease. But what we observe in people who follow the carnivore diet is the complete opposite.

No, we don't, that is a claim you have failed repeatedly to support with evidence, meanwhile the articles included in the review clearly disprove that claim with objective, validated data.

One thing the author wrote which I agree with is the following:

You mean you didn't know that terribly unbalanced diets are bad for your health even when mixed? that would betray a huge lack of knowledge about the field you want to impose your personal opinion. The carnivore diet is much worse than more balanced diets used to lose weight, lowering your standards of comparison to say it is better than bad diets only helps demonstrating that you now it can only compare poorly with diets that are actually healthy.

No, not based on the scientific literature, but rather on their funders.

Without evidence this is not an argument, is just an excuse for not having an argument. I gave a very clear example of scientific literature that clearly proves the point, against which you could not make even one argument. That means you accept the conclusions are based on clear scientific literature, even if you are not willing to accept it because of a personal antiscientific bias.

How else would you explain that "respected" institutions of medical science fire their experienced dieticians if they refuse to promote products (e.g. artificial sweeteners) produced by companies that provide considerable funds to the institution.

Every respected institution in the world? in every country? that is false and again just an excuse to avoid accepting the medical consensus. Dieticians are not even the only specialists in the topic, and cardiologists, endocrinologists, etc. are also part of the consensus that say the carnivore diet is much worse than the best options available.

Shawn Baker's license was taken because of proven incompetence, something that he could refute by presenting the evidence examined by the medical board, but he has repeatedly refused to do it, which clearly indicates the removal is completely justified.

As a reference he is terribly inadequate since he himself characterize his recommendations as not medical advice and instead something that should be taken only for entertainment, this is something that may be related on why he was declared incompetent.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shawn_Baker

This is for example a very clear review of evidence of the extra health risks associated with the carnivore diet, what criticism do you have about the data used, the methodologies or the conclusions of this report?

https://www.mdpi.com/2308-3425/10/7/282

Yeah, finding stuff when you're out can be challenging. But there is no reason why one would need to eat 3 meals per day. Two or even one meal per day can be beneficial, and is easier to do on a carnivore diet.

According to the evidence it is as difficult as with any other diet, most people fail to continue a carnivore diet in the long term the same as other diets, which may be something positive seeing how this particular option comes with higher cardiac risk.

There is no evidence of extra health risks being associated with the carnivore diet.

Of course there is, how else would you explain that respected institutions of medical science clearly conclude so based on the scientific literature? I mean, it would be impossible to expect people to believe the medical community of the world is wrong just because you choose to believe something different.

It's enough supporting all the big Pharma companies. There is no easy way to lose weight . the first step is to stop eating donuts every day, after you go through your withdrawals everything will seem to fall in place.

Any evidence that this approach is effective? How do you explain that countries still have big public health problems because of obesity when according to you the solution is so obvious and easy to implement?

Making it too easy to access including morning after pills encourages promiscuous behaviour and adultery.

Citation required, this is a claim that if true would be easily proved with objective evidence, without that evidence the claim is worthless.

In fact evidence of the opposite of your claim is available, which would demonstrate you are mistaken

https://intranet.bixbycenter.ucsf.edu/publications/files/DoesECPromoteSexRiskTaking_2008.pdf

If one of the four things that needs to be "desperately amended" is the Imperial Household Law, there isn't much to complain about, is there?

As mentioned in the article, if this is taken as a reflection of a tacit acceptance of women being considered less than men, then it is a perfectly valid reason to complain.

Did you try carnivore? Or keto?

Why recommend unhealthy options that come with extra health risks? There is a reason why the medical consensus is that both of your recommendations are much less beneficial than what the experts say is a healthy weight reduction diet.

Of course, watching one's diet and exercising to lose weight comes without those risks these drugs come with, according to the medical experts of the world, and even the agency the WHO.

But for patients that repeatedly fail this is why the drugs represent a much lower risk than not using them, that is why the experts of the world do recommend using them for those patients. You have previously claimed the FDA failed by approving these drugs for use with the purpose of losing weight since according to you the approval was unnecessary, do you finally have any argument or evidence to prove this failure? or is it just again repeating the claim without being able to support it?

Where is the data and facts behind this statement if "traditional plant based"

See the examples provided, you are confused between "traditionally, feeding has been plant based" and "traditional plant based products". Unless you think every plant based food suddenly appeared in recent times you have to agree there are plant based products that have been eaten traditionally in every culture. The push is for more people to change their diet to reduce meat and include more of those traditional products.

It's getting better all the time.

Not everything, climate is much worse, and in some countries antiscientific propaganda being promoted by bad actors protecting the interests of the elite greatly reduces the scientific literacy of a segment of the population, like happens in the US. What has improved are the minimum standards, so these problems (that could have been considered inevitable before) are now recognized as unnecessary and perfectly possible to solve.

Big Pharma sees these things as "opportunities "

So do doctors, and scientists, every disease is an opportunity to do something to correct the damage and increase the health of the public. There is a huge difference between causing a problem and seeing merit in correcting that problem.

In this case GLP-1 analogs are a useful intervention that not only help reducing weight but also have demonstrated lower the risk of many different health problems related to metabolic discontrol, from hypertension to cancer. For those that can keep a healthy diet and excercise properly the drugs are inconsequential, but for those that have tried to change their lifestyle only to fail repeatedly these can mean success and a much longer and healthier life. Which of course would come thanks to their new ability to eat properly and excercise better.

Of course that coming from the organizer of the games plagued with scandals and corruption, "Value" refers to economic profit for the companies involved in the games.

Because they only focus on making the lives of the parents better. There is no focus on making the lives of the children better.

If that was the focus it would be completely understandable, the children are not the ones deciding how many children would be in the family, that is still something the parents are doing. So if the government was actually making their lives better it would have an effect on the birthrate. The reality is that the focus of the measures is not making the lives of the parents better (since that would require huge social and economic changes), the focus is instead on implementing the easiest, cheapest measures they can get away while pretending to care.

People are not going to have children with the current situation, not if they think about the children and not if they only care about themselves.

These systems are just band-aids for poor driving habits and inadequate driver training. Nothing more, and they are not fool proof.

You could be describing a lot more of other safety measures, from helmets to lab coats, if people acted always in perfect accordance with the best possible way of doing something most of these measures would be unnecessary, not to mention that there is no safety measure that is fool proof.

That does not mean the measures are because of that useless, as long as lives are saved there is a perfectly valid justification in using them, even if they are not perfect or could be replaced with people acting properly 100% of the time.

The best part? that safety measures in no way require for education or training to also be used to modify how people act. People can still wear helmets even if they are trained to make those helmets irrelevant. And unintended acceleration prevention system can be used even when people are also required to be better prepared to avoid this kind of accidents.

That is indeed the narrative that is being pushed, mainly from questionnaires where participants are asked what they eat; and they include things like hotdogs, lasagna with meat sauce .... as eating meats. But there is no legit evidence against eating real meat (e.g. steaks). The same can't be said about the ingredients of these fake meats.

This is the consensus of medical science, what evidence do you have every respected institution working in nutrition, metabolic diseases, endocrinology, etc. are wrong when they say eating meat is negative? none? that would still mean they are much more likely to be correct than nameless people on the internet that are unable to present evidence or arguments to support their personal beliefs.

Those who believe in fake meats being healthy also believe the shots are safe and effective,

What is the consensus is that there is no evidence about fake meat being specially risky, specially when compared with the kind of food they replace. The same applies to vaccines, which have been proved safe and effective worldwide. What you mischaracterize as conformity is just being scientifically literate and understanding things that have evidence behind them are much more likely to be correct than antiscientific propaganda based on disproved claims.

These comments get funnier by the day.

And yet you still have zero arguments against them, just making unsuccessful personal attacks when the consensus of science is different from what you want to believe.

If you don't like meat, don't eat it and mind your own business

The problem is that this in no way refutes the criticism about being in denial about the evidence of the negative effects of meat on health. Is like replying to someone telling you that smoking is bad by saying people that don't want to smoke should not repeat how bad is smoking. It makes no sense.

Ah, the shallowness of someone who think's he's the smartest guy in the room.

That would apply much more to people that think personal attacks are arguments, when they obviously are not. Specially when those personal attacks are even against the rules of the site you promised to obey in order to participate.

LOL. But I do admire the mental gymnastics of conflating telling someone to mind their own business as authoritarianism.

There is no problem when the demand is against people simply repeating something that can be scientifically proved. You are demanding people not to tell something you are not capable of accepting even if true, definitely representative of authoritarianism. For example you could simply say you are fine with being demonstrated wrong, but not by demanding people not to demonstrate you are wrong.

If you care about your health, eat real meat.

"Real meat" is a well described risk factor for heart problems, the recommendation is to avoid eating all kinds of meat and instead increase plant based food in your diet, obviously less processed food is better even when it is plant based (and a salad better than cakes) but there is zero evidence fake meat comes with more risk than real meat.

Can't improve safety in this way.

Based on what evidence? obviously just claiming this is useless have no value unless you can prove it, it makes perfect sense.

This "feature" won't even work properly anyway

Crystal ball arguments? or just the plain old "useless unless 100% effective" fallacy? Both are obviously invalid ways to defend the point, even if this was terribly ineffective and "only" saved half of the lives that would still mean a huge benefit.

As the previous article about distrust in the media explained. When outlets found out about the report they had a choice, either make true but boring articles that said something everybody knew (eating too many cakes and pastries is bad for your health) or make misleading articles blaming fake meats so they would get a much higher profit from telling people something new and unexpected (specially something that the people would want to believe).

The choice of the media is terribly obvious.

Because feminism taught women that empowerment, liberation and freedom come from ditching relationships and family and focusing only on climbing the corporate.

No, that would not be a reason, at least not one that has any kind of evidence behind to support it, the same as the claim that diversity is causing all the problems of modern societies it is only a deflection from people that refuse to accept their prejudices are wrong and society left them behind.

he 2 or 3 degrees plus change on average is not making punctual local temperature change worse, which have always existed, more impactful.

Reference needed,

Wrong

Again, the quoted text clearly and unequivocally says the term is referencing at the current crisis, not at change in general, that means you are the one using a wrong definition precisely because you choose to ignore the text you yourself quoted. What is the point of that?

From your own source, immediately below the text you used

*Changes observed in Earth’s climate since the mid-20th century are driven by human activities, particularly fossil fuel burning, which increases heat-trapping greenhouse gas levels in Earth’s atmosphere, raising Earth’s average surface temperature. *

So, your own source says this is because of human activity, you proved the point yourself.

Summer is here, as has been the case in every year past,

As the article clearly points out, this is not the case, latests years come with higher temperatures, earlier during the year and in more days than previous years. And that is already causing health problems that are projected to become more and more serious.

I was in a more rural area (far less asphalt & concrete) today and it was reasonable for a summer day .

If every regions has higher temperatures in the most recent years you are not proving your point, things can be worse everywhere lately and also things can be worse in some places compared with others, both things can be true at the same time.