phonypc

If you believe adding honey to your food is meaningfully different than white sugar from a metabolic perspective, I have a bridge to sell you.

>12G of sugar in one cup of skim milk

None of which is sucrose, or added.

Any examples? I'm aware of "ultrafiltered" milk e.g. Fairlife, where they remove lactose, but not heard of adding it.

Anyway, lactose is not equivalent to sucrose in terms of health impact.

>which seems difficult since they're also the people who claim it's not a real concept.

A straw man if there ever was one. Insofar as anyone even says something like "race isn't real", the claim isn't that the concept doesn't exist. What would that even mean? The claim is that it isn't biologically grounded, or that it's socially constructed or some such.

The numbers in that tweet are based on this (pre-print) paper which reports a higher rate than the CDC does, and doesn't give a figure for Moderna specifically, so doesn't really work as a source for that "known fact" if that was your intent.

I don't see how body mass and aspiration can possibly explain the presentation of vaccine associated myocarditis we're seeing. i.e. increased incidence in pubescent boys and young men. They should tend towards lower body mass than older men, and the people administering vaccines don't aspirate in general, not just for some demographics. This demographic is just generally more susceptible to myocarditis from any cause.

Would be nice to have some reasoning given for why I51.4 should be included. Not a physician, but it appears to indicate a pre-existing cardiac condition, in which case it seems reasonable to exclude those cases on the grounds of not being able to establish that the vaccine was the likely cause.

Kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place. With the way case numbers are going, for everyone to strictly adhere to the old recommendations would necessitate pretty huge disruptions to essential services.

>You know, it could be that these people are healthier because they avoid sugar because sugar makes them feel like crap when they get overloaded with aceatate.

They address that hypothesis and dismiss it. It's beyond my understanding to assess their methods, but don't pretend they didn't even mention it.

That's addressed in the study. In fact, in their mouse model, the benefits don't show up unless they are fed sucrose.

>And in NO way doe sthis mean that eating sugar is healthy for them as the title implies!!!!

That's actually exactly what the study concludes. They say children do experience those symptoms, but adapt as adults and are better off for it.

It kinda does, partially and indirectly. The study indicates it's not a matter of them eating less sucrose, the benefits actually don't show up in the absence of sucrose in the diet. It essentially acts like soluble fibre.

Of course the micro-nutrients that would be in the broccoli don't materialize out of nowhere.

>Greenlanders haven't existed for millennia. Greenlanders have existed for just under a millennium.

That sentence is saying the diet is millennia old. The diet and genetic variation are also common to other Inuit populations.

That explanation doesn't really make sense, and a different one[1] appears in the paper itself. People who lack the enzymes to digest a sugar experience gastrointestinal distress because bacteria in the lower GI tract eat the sugar that wouldn't otherwise make it to them, producing gas in the process.

[1]>This discrepancy between adults and children, may be due to the maturation and growth of the small intestine, increasing the capacity to absorb luminal fluid with increasing age, and to dietary adaptation caused by symptoms in childhood.

At some workplaces they have to use a rapid antigen test. You need a positive PCR test to be in the official numbers.

Way too many confounders to draw that conclusion from the data. Vaccinated in Ontario are allowed to participate in a whole host of risky activities like going to gyms, dining at restaurants etc. that unvaccinated technically can't do. And the people left unvaccinated at this point are mostly ideologically opposed; do you think they're actually testing and reporting their cases? We're also just way behind on tests in general.

The data broken down by age is less recent for some reason. Only goes to Oct 24.

Edit: Disclaimer at the top of the page says technical difficulty.

That's just plainly not true, as a matter of government policy. There's a soft mandate in some settings like hospitals. Otherwise it's up to the employer, and there are tons of employers without policies.

It's not apples-to-oranges, it's apples-to-less-carefully-selected-apples. The Hoeg paper mentions a broader case-finding method, but "We otherwise maintained the specificity of our analysis by requiring the same objective findings of cardiac injury used by the CDC to identify probable cases (Supplement 1) and excluded cases without sufficient objective evidence of cardiac-specific injury." The 7 cases in the blog are highlighted to demonstrate that this is clearly not true; they have not excluded cases without sufficient evidence of cardiac-specific injury in line with the CDC. So no, that criticism is not unfounded.

You've dismissed as apples-to-oranges the 2x difference in numbers between the two publications using VAERS data, then linked a third paper using different data (which isn't available in full; who knows what their inclusion criteria were) that shows another 2x discrepancy as evidence that the findings are in general concurrence? Would you have me believe that's not actually an apples-to-oranges comparison? Why not this paper[1] out of Canada the gives a rate of 97/million for the group most closely matching your 370/million number? Or this one[2] out of Israel with 137/million.

[1]https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.02.21267156v... [2]https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2109730

Your question would seem to imply you've used VAERS to inform yourself, but I would contend you've relied on someone else's interpretation of it.

Different data sets. The sentence preceding your quote from the FDA estimates rates of 71.5 and 42.6 per million using VAERS, vs. the garbage paper's 164 and 92 per million. i.e. less than half the incidence.

Regarding that other data set, see page 24 of this report: https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download

Importantly, in relies on unconfirmed cases of myo/pericarditis, and concludes vaccine benefits outweigh risks even in a hypothetical worst case scenario anyway.

Hyperbolic language doesn't discredit any of the blogger's criticisms, but here's another more calmly worded one if you'd like: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/peer-review-of-a-vaers-dump...

VAERS is not the best information available by any means, but it is indeed a valid source of information. The issue with the paper is that it misuses the information and draws conclusions that aren't actually indicated.

No they don't. The study that article references is hot garbage.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/dumpster-diving-in-vaers-do...

That would seem to make sense if covid displaced flu entirely. But flu + equivalently harmful covid is twice as bad as historical flu.

Some of the negative responses are baffling, but I guess shouldn't be too surprising seeing as they're anonymous.

>“Making a delivery might literally kill you if you get carjacked and shot. I kinda want to see this happen and see the family sue the company for like a billion dollars and win just so no company ever gets a stupid idea like this ever again.”

But getting some poor scrub contractor to do it for a fraction of the compensation is fine?

Wiki seems to mostly cite books by a Mark S. Smith on this topic, who seems to be a professor of Biblical Studies at Princeton Theological Seminary. I'm not sure you could characterize him as an archaeologist inventing a narrative from the starting position of "Bible wrong".

Only if you feed the pigs carrion and under cook it. There was a big trichinosis issue in the mid-20th century, which is when some people speculated on its connection to religious pork taboos, but nobody really takes that idea seriously any more.

Probably the way of the future, maybe ultimately for the better.

But it's kinda viscerally disturbing that the article fawns over businesses not having to pay employment insurance or keep up with minimum wage increases, with no mention of the implications this might have for the labour market.

Ya conflicting is maybe not the right word. Obviously within the narrative as a whole it's one god. I guess I'm trying to point out they were historically separate deities, so it's more like being called both Robert and George, rather than Dr. and Mr.

That works for the various epithets, but El and Yahweh seem to be conflicting proper names. i.e. is your name Robert or George?

Sure, there would necessarily have to be pre-K-Pg avians for them to have been the only ones that survived. I just don't see how one could characterize surviving dinosaurs as non-avian in any way, but they apparently meant non-flying.