Slashdot Mirror

You prudish Americans. Actually its the opposite.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

https://www.bustle.com/article...

http://www.webmd.com/food-reci...

Have Americans Given Up on Losing Weight?

One in every three people in the United States is now obese, compared with one in five 20 years ago, researchers report.

All racial/ethnic groups across both genders reported decreased interest in weight loss, but women in particular were more likely to say they'd given up on it, the findings showed.

Thanks for injecting more evidence from notable sources into this discussion.

Because animal fast concentrates pesticides more than plant fat, I'd agree protein and fast from meat is riskier in our society especially for cancer. That said, have these studies you cited made a clear distinction between processed meets (e.g. frankfurters) and factory-farmed meat raised on grain and *also* grass-fed organic meat? From other discussion of such studies, I doubt they have. The subject pool of people who eat cleaner meats these days is so small to begin with...

And there are counterstudies (responding to the one link you supplied that villifies saturated fats):
http://www.webmd.com/cholester...
"New research questions that belief. A recent review of 72 studies found no link between saturated fat and heart disease. The review also showed that monounsaturated fats like those in olive oil, nuts, and avocados don't protect against heart disease."

The good news is, more and more people are aware of the many nuances here, and we can expect better and better studies to come out on all this. Some of this depends on what you focus on -- cancer, hearty disease, dementia, daily energy level, overall resistance to infection, and so on. It also matters whether we are talking what growing kids need, what active adults need, and what sedentary adults need, and what older adults need since needs and risks may be different in all these cases.

And one has to put any risk in context. As it says here from one study showing the dangers of processed meats:
http://www.webmd.com/food-reci...
"In absolute terms, the increased risk is pretty small. For example, the risk that a man will get colorectal cancer during the course of his lifetime is about 4.8%, on average -- or said differently, about 1 in 21 men will develop it in his lifetime. A 17% increase in that risk bumps it up to 5.6%, or changes that risk to about 1 in 18 men. By comparison, a 2005 study determined that smoking a single daily cigarette could increase a person's risk of lung cancer by about 200% to 400%."

However, the health effects of "diabesity" (Dr. Hyman's term for diabetes+obesity) from eating refined sugar and refined carbohydrates are enormous and devastating to out society. So while I tend towards vegetarian/vegan foods myself for both health and ethical reasons, I have to concede that the risks of even processes meat consumption may be much lower risk than eating a lot of refined sugars and refined carbs which many people do (including many vegans and vegetarians for whom "vegetables" may not be a big part of their diets). In this case, many people might be choosing between a 20% increased risk of cancer vs. hugely increased risk of heart disease from refined carbs and a much less fulfilling low-energy life.

But even Dr. Fuhrman, who promotes a mostly vegan diet, says that people who get 10% of calories from meat and eat a lot of vegetables are going to be much healthier than a 100% vegetarian who does not eat many vegetables.

So someone like Marshall Brain may have benefited enormously from going on the meat-heavy Dukan diet and losing 50 lbs to even as I tried to encourage him (in blog comments) towards eating more vegetables instead (precisely because of cancer risks and other health risks).
http://marshallbrain.com/dukan...

That said, eating lower on the food chain makes sense for many reasons -- including ethical ones beyond the concentration of pesticides and heavy metals like mercury in animal fats. And Marshall Brain probably could have done the same using Dr. Hyman's or Dr. Fuhrman's approaches with greater long-term health benefits and a permanent shift to a new sustainable eating plan.

Also, different people may respond differently to the same food (i.e. "Nutrigenomics")

Thanks for injecting more evidence from notable sources into this discussion.

Because animal fast concentrates pesticides more than plant fat, I'd agree protein and fast from meat is riskier in our society especially for cancer. That said, have these studies you cited made a clear distinction between processed meets (e.g. frankfurters) and factory-farmed meat raised on grain and *also* grass-fed organic meat? From other discussion of such studies, I doubt they have. The subject pool of people who eat cleaner meats these days is so small to begin with...

And there are counterstudies (responding to the one link you supplied that villifies saturated fats):
http://www.webmd.com/cholester...
"New research questions that belief. A recent review of 72 studies found no link between saturated fat and heart disease. The review also showed that monounsaturated fats like those in olive oil, nuts, and avocados don't protect against heart disease."

The good news is, more and more people are aware of the many nuances here, and we can expect better and better studies to come out on all this. Some of this depends on what you focus on -- cancer, hearty disease, dementia, daily energy level, overall resistance to infection, and so on. It also matters whether we are talking what growing kids need, what active adults need, and what sedentary adults need, and what older adults need since needs and risks may be different in all these cases.

And one has to put any risk in context. As it says here from one study showing the dangers of processed meats:
http://www.webmd.com/food-reci...
"In absolute terms, the increased risk is pretty small. For example, the risk that a man will get colorectal cancer during the course of his lifetime is about 4.8%, on average -- or said differently, about 1 in 21 men will develop it in his lifetime. A 17% increase in that risk bumps it up to 5.6%, or changes that risk to about 1 in 18 men. By comparison, a 2005 study determined that smoking a single daily cigarette could increase a person's risk of lung cancer by about 200% to 400%."

However, the health effects of "diabesity" (Dr. Hyman's term for diabetes+obesity) from eating refined sugar and refined carbohydrates are enormous and devastating to out society. So while I tend towards vegetarian/vegan foods myself for both health and ethical reasons, I have to concede that the risks of even processes meat consumption may be much lower risk than eating a lot of refined sugars and refined carbs which many people do (including many vegans and vegetarians for whom "vegetables" may not be a big part of their diets). In this case, many people might be choosing between a 20% increased risk of cancer vs. hugely increased risk of heart disease from refined carbs and a much less fulfilling low-energy life.

But even Dr. Fuhrman, who promotes a mostly vegan diet, says that people who get 10% of calories from meat and eat a lot of vegetables are going to be much healthier than a 100% vegetarian who does not eat many vegetables.

So someone like Marshall Brain may have benefited enormously from going on the meat-heavy Dukan diet and losing 50 lbs to even as I tried to encourage him (in blog comments) towards eating more vegetables instead (precisely because of cancer risks and other health risks).
http://marshallbrain.com/dukan...

That said, eating lower on the food chain makes sense for many reasons -- including ethical ones beyond the concentration of pesticides and heavy metals like mercury in animal fats. And Marshall Brain probably could have done the same using Dr. Hyman's or Dr. Fuhrman's approaches with greater long-term health benefits and a permanent shift to a new sustainable eating plan.

Also, different people may respond differently to the same food (i.e. "Nutrigenomics")

All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.

We've got dissociative identity disorder (multiple personality disorder) and we all hate your politics AND guts. So there!

(Well, one of us thinks you're kinda handsome, but they're just crazy.)

And we have the HFCS to thank for this unfortunate condition

The link between HFCS and diabetes is very, very weak. It is more myth than reality. One study found a correlation at the national level between countries that use a lot of HFCS and also have higher levels of type 2 diabeties, but that is a weak link with very few data points that could have a lot of other explanations rather than direct causality. AFAIK, no study has found a causal link between HFCS and diabetes in humans. If the link was really as strong as many corn critics claim, then it would be very easy to show causality, yet that hasn't happened. I am very interested in this topic, so if someone can cite a study, I would be very interested to see it.

Disclaimer: I try to avoid HFCS (and other sugar as well), but I am not a fanatic about it.

Part of the problem with TRT is the definition of low tester one is somewhat nebulous. I am not sure there has been a lab range accepted age-adjusted testosterone levels. Typically the most commonly accepted medical reason is when a man comes in with a non-typical fracture (hip, vertebral body etc...) then we tend to look at testosterone levels.

Other than that...indications for use are sketchy.

In addition, anyone who has been around and doesn't have an agenda or bias would be wise to remember the fiasco with ERT in women. Made them feel good, but ended up being more harm than benefit. It is likely, outside of a few indications, that TRT will end up being the same.

Believe it or not, farmed salmon has a much higher quantity of mercury than wild-caught salmon (and salmon is really not a fish that has a mercury problem in the wild).

Got a citation for that? The only reputable info I can find says the opposite.

http://www.webmd.com/food-reci...

It's only 'gold standard' if your standard is that you need more gold. Yes, it's becoming more common. Yes, it is quite a bit more expensive. No, it is not at all clear that it is any better. USA! USA! USA!

It doesn't work as well as old fashioned prostate surgery. (Yes, it's from 2009, hasn't changed that much.)

The webMD page you quoted is here:
http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-...

You are being disingenuous because the sentence you quoted is part of a paragraph that advices AGAINST the uses and says that it is NOT EFECTIVE.

Here's the rest of it.

Colloidal silver is a mineral. Despite promoters’ claims, silver has no known function in the body and is not an essential mineral supplement. Colloidal silver products were once available as over-the-counter drug products, but in 1999, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ruled that these colloidal silver products were not considered safe or effective. Colloidal silver products marketed for medical purposes or promoted for unproven uses are now considered “misbranded” under the law without appropriate FDA approval as a new drug. There are currently no FDA-approved over-the-counter or prescription drugs containing silver that are taken by mouth. However, there are still colloidal silver products being sold as homeopathic remedies and dietary supplements.

  There are many Internet ads for the parts of a generator that produces colloidal silver at home. People who produce colloidal silver at home will likely not be able to evaluate their product for purity or strength. There are many products that are far safer and more effective than colloidal silver.

  Despite these concerns about safety and effectiveness, people still buy colloidal silver as a dietary supplement and use it for a wide range of ailments. Colloidal silver is used to treat infections due to yeast; bacteria (tuberculosis, Lyme disease, bubonic plague, pneumonia, leprosy, gonorrhea, syphilis, scarlet fever, stomach ulcers, cholera); parasites (ringworm, malaria); and viruses (HIV/AIDS, pneumonia, herpes, shingles, warts).

I have to agree with the previous posters assertion that "You, sir or madam, are a lying sack of dangerous shit."

You, sir or madam, are a lying sack of dangerous shit.

Quote WebMD:

"Home Remedy No-No Number 4: Colloidal Silver

With hype and hope spread by word of mouth and the Internet, colloidal silver is believed by some to help treat a range of infections and diseases.

"People believe that colloidal silver can treat fungal infections, TB, HIV, herpes, and even cancer by boosting the immune system," says Ted Epperly, MD, president-elect of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

Unfortunately for colloidal sliver supporters, they're wrong, and the consequences of their mistake could be costly.

"One of the most well-known side effects of colloidal silver is that it turns a person's skin a greyish shade of blue," says Epperly.

The skin isn't the only organ affected by colloidal silver; so are the kidneys, stomach, and brain, as well as the nervous system. Silver is actually deposited into the cells of these organs, possibly causing cell damage and death, leading to organ failure.

"The effects of colloidal silver are toxic and cumulative," says Epperly. "Worse, they're irreversible."

Epperly urges people to ignore the hype and instead, talk to a health care provider about the proper way to treat infections and diseases.

http://www.webmd.com/women/features/5-home-remedy-no-nos#3

Artificial sugar may cause other problems:

After TASTING the sweetness, the body may ask, "But where's the calories?"

Sweet tooth unsatisfied, we may be eating more other stuff.

Artificial sweeteners appear to disturb the body's ability to count calories and, as a result, diet foods and drinks may wind up encouraging weight gain rather than weight loss, an expert contends. ... Commonly used sweeteners include sucralose, aspartame and saccharin, among others.

The "common cold" is really just a set of symptoms that might be related to any of over 200 viruses. The vaccine mentioned in the article is for one of those, RSV.

I can't find precise numbers, but according to this article, RSV causes less than 20% of colds. Interestingly, the number in this article has apparently recently been adjusted upwards from 10% as that number is still appearing in google caches.

So, this vaccine will not help for >80% of the cases of common cold. On the plus side, RSV is really bad in babies. So it still has value.

So should a person be prosecuted for one hair follicle considering http://www.webmd.com/skin-prob.... Keep in mind that means 365,000 per year you scatter around for which you are now legally liable. So exactly for how long can DNA be recovered from a hair follicle, after you lose it.

I blame this on tv shows like CSI.

DNA is great circumstantial evidence for falsifying an alibi (e.g., I never saw that person, so how did your dna get in the house?). As for proving something specific happened, it of course doesn't do shit, but then again people are convicted by dubious circumstantial evidence all the time (e.g, eye witness testimony) so in the bigger scheme of things, it isn't that different.

So should a person be prosecuted for one hair follicle considering http://www.webmd.com/skin-prob.... Keep in mind that means 365,000 per year you scatter around for which you are now legally liable. So exactly for how long can DNA be recovered from a hair follicle, after you lose it.

I wonder how cannabis compares. There is no way smoking small particulate matter of any kind is healthy, and while it isn't as carcinogenic as tobacco, I would be extremely surprised to see if it didn't have long term health effects on the lungs. Only time will tell.

Curiously enough, the non-biased studies seem to show that cannabis does NOT seem to contribute significantly to COPD, and may even be ANTI-carcinogenic. I know it seems impossible, but them's the facts.

Even the Canadian Medial Association Journal stated in 2009, Article "Does smoking marijuana increase the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?" that "Given the consistently reported absence of an association between use of marijuana and abnormal diffusing capacity or signs of macroscopic emphysema, we can be close to concluding that smoking marijuana by itself does not lead to COPD."

And, as far as Marijuana smoking causing Cancer, even the most pedestrian of Medical Resources, WebMD, are saying publicly there is no causal link between Pot smoking and increased Cancer risk, even for the heaviest of smokers. "The heaviest marijuana users in the study had smoked more than 22,000 joints, while moderately heavy smokers had smoked between 11,000 and 22,000 joints.

While two-pack-a-day or more cigarette smokers were found to have a 20-fold increase in lung cancer risk, no elevation in risk was seen for even the very heaviest marijuana smokers."

And yet, Marijuana is STILL listed as a Schedule 1 NARCOTIC in the U.S....

THIS...there was a british longitudinal study showing heavy pot smokers had little, if any increase in pulmonary fibrosis and the protective effect from lung cancer was shown. it wasn't huge but anything is surprising and worth following up on. it was a pretty big surprise that smoking non-filtered blunts didn't damage the lungs overall.

I wonder how cannabis compares. There is no way smoking small particulate matter of any kind is healthy, and while it isn't as carcinogenic as tobacco, I would be extremely surprised to see if it didn't have long term health effects on the lungs. Only time will tell.

Curiously enough, the non-biased studies seem to show that cannabis does NOT seem to contribute significantly to COPD, and may even be ANTI-carcinogenic. I know it seems impossible, but them's the facts.

Even the Canadian Medial Association Journal stated in 2009, Article "Does smoking marijuana increase the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?" that "Given the consistently reported absence of an association between use of marijuana and abnormal diffusing capacity or signs of macroscopic emphysema, we can be close to concluding that smoking marijuana by itself does not lead to COPD."

And, as far as Marijuana smoking causing Cancer, even the most pedestrian of Medical Resources, WebMD, are saying publicly there is no causal link between Pot smoking and increased Cancer risk, even for the heaviest of smokers. "The heaviest marijuana users in the study had smoked more than 22,000 joints, while moderately heavy smokers had smoked between 11,000 and 22,000 joints.

While two-pack-a-day or more cigarette smokers were found to have a 20-fold increase in lung cancer risk, no elevation in risk was seen for even the very heaviest marijuana smokers."

And yet, Marijuana is STILL listed as a Schedule 1 NARCOTIC in the U.S....

My father has passed, he was a working Pharmacist, worked his way through Medical school, he would keep some medicines in the fridge and if needed, administer via a syringe.

Very few people are trained medical professionals. That is a rare circumstance not relevant to 99% of the population.

What is the minimum training required to administer a syringe of anything effectively....bet it is cheaper than the 'idiot-proof' pin with zero risk of administering the wrong dosage....as long as your eyesight is good enough to read the syringe.

It's cheaper until you kill someone. And rest assured that someone would. Even trained medical professionals screw up with some regularity on dosing drugs. Furthermore the whole point of something like an epipen is that you don't need to be trained. Maybe you live in a hospital but most of my day I am not around anyone who is trained to administer medications and even if they were the supplies are not readily available. Nobody keeps syringes and vials of epinephrine around. In many work places unused syringes would disappear faster than doughnuts at a weight watchers meeting. (Druggies aren't shy about stealing that sort of stuff)

Sure hope the industry and politicians never manage to restrict or outlaw vitamins...know big pharma wants them too.

You mean the same vitamin industry that has been selling fake supplements for years. They ABSOLUTELY should be regulated. The only reason they aren't is that the supplement manufacturers evidently have a very effective lobby and managed to get key members of congress to squash any attempt to regulate them by the FDA despite the fact that it has been proven that in many cases they are selling products that do not contain what is on the label.

If they really wanted to help, they'd spend the money commissioning the writing of textbooks that anyone can print, copy, or download in ePub format for free. As it is, schools have two options - keep using outdated text books, or spend money on textbooks by taking it out of the budget somewhere else.

And unlike this project, free textbooks can be scaled out across the nation instead of just a few areas. And save kids the hassle and danger of spinal damage of carrying a ton of books.

Is it finally time to allow Americans to go online and fill their prescriptions on the world market?

What prevents an American from buying EpiPens (or any pharmaceutical) on the international market?

According to WebMD an individual normal varies just 1F (0.6C) from 98.6F (37C), and it may vary the same throughout the day. So. +|- 2F or 1.2C. Methinks thou doth protest too much.

It's fact, not propaganda that "Raw milk causes more than half of all milk-related foodborne illnesses in the United States, even though only about 3.5 percent of Americans drink raw milk". Your grand conspiracy doesn't involve just the FDA, but instead a multitude of research institutes, like Johns Hopkins, whose scientific findings, across the board, shows significant dangers from drinking raw milk: - http://www.webmd.com/food-reci... [webmd.com]

I suggest you Google about webmd and their funding (big pharma) and propaganda (promotions from grants). WebMD is paid by the FDA, which receives its funding from big pharma and, yes, the corporate farming lobby. So by posting propaganda from WebMD, you're supporting MY argument, not your own.

The article you linked was not a study, did not link to any study. It was a (poorly done) article about a report prepared for politicians (who, of course, have an agenda). There is no link to the report, no reference to the "81 studies" that the "researchers" selected to support their position (a conclusion that they were paid to support). No science there at all.

All the actual peer-reviewed articles you posted referred to raw-milk cheese, and mostly specific anecdotes of specific outbreaks, and primarily outside the US. So, pretty irrelevant, especially considering that any process where you INTENTIONALLY GROW BACTERIA can certainly go wrong in many ways.

Your conspiracy theory fails on numerous counts:

It's fact, not propaganda that "Raw milk causes more than half of all milk-related foodborne illnesses in the United States, even though only about 3.5 percent of Americans drink raw milk".

Your grand conspiracy doesn't involve just the FDA, but instead a multitude of research institutes, like Johns Hopkins, whose scientific findings, across the board, shows significant dangers from drinking raw milk:
- http://www.webmd.com/food-reci...

Here's just a few pages of references you can read through:

- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...
- http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...

The dairy council doesn't pay out any money to the CDC, and they're the ones who are warning the public about the dangers of raw milk:
- http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/...

The Dairy Council is a piss-poor choice as a Bond-villain... It isn't remotely as big, rich, and powerful as the many other organizations and industries that public health authorities have put the kibosh on. Think "Big Tobacco" in comparison to "Big Milk". Except milk is trivial to render safe, while tobacco is not.

The Dairy Council could make just as much money from raw milk as it does from pasteurized, so there's little or no motivation for them to launch an expensive grand conspiracy.

In short, you're just like any other run-of-the-mill nut-job. Instead of UFOs, vaccinations, fluoridation, or HAARP, your preferred pseudo-scientific nonsense based around raw milk.

Feel free to do your own searches and give me a list of studies which have shown health benefits from raw milk, and NO additional danger from it's consumption, unlike EVERYTHING I just linked you to... I'll be waiting for your pages and pages of citations in response.

I lied, almost done here.

One more little nugget for you.

http://www.dsm5.org/documents/...

71% of people with gender dysphoria will have some other mental health diagnosis in their lifetime.
http://www.webmd.com/mental-he...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

That said I am going to assume you are a member of the 71% and recommend you see a doctor, and cease communications on this topic for the time being since you are obviously not well, and debating with the mentally ill is rarely productive.

It is with all sincerity that I wish you; Good luck.

It's a matter of numbers. If 5% of pet dogs went rabid, owning dogs would be outlawed.

There are two reason that rabies isn't a big problem with dogs (in the developed world, at least):

1) Any dog that is discovered to be infected is generally killed immediately, before it can spread the disease further.
2) Vaccinations are mandatory and reasonably effective.

Good luck at convincing all the dog owners around the place that their pets should die too :)

Good luck vaccinating hundreds of thousands of wild bats.

“The immediate and short-term impact of alcohol is to reduce the time it takes to fall asleep, and this effect on the first half of sleep may be partly the reason some people with insomnia use alcohol as a sleep aid,” Ebrahim says. “However, this is offset by having more disrupted sleep in the second half of the night.”

“Alcohol should not be used as a sleep aid, and regular use of alcohol as a sleep aid may result in alcohol dependence,” he says.

The findings will appear in the April 2013 issue of Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research.

http://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders/news/20130118/alcohol-sleep

I work late shift right now and I like it. I worked graveyard shifts before and loved them. Sadly they were taken away "for the employees' benefit" (read: "because it was more expensive").

Graveyard shift is actually killing people

Bunk, stop lying or get updated with the new info.

"If this trend continues, in five or six years non-alcohol drugs will overtake alcohol to become the most common substance involved in deaths related to impaired driving."

http://www.webmd.com/mental-he...
http://seattle.cbslocal.com/20...
http://www.msn.com/en-us/healt...

Bunk.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/healt...
http://seattle.cbslocal.com/20...

http://www.webmd.com/mental-he...

"If this trend continues, in five or six years non-alcohol drugs will overtake alcohol to become the most common substance involved in deaths related to impaired driving."

I like to return (somewhat repetitively, I admit) to the Gary Taubes article that really summed it up best in recent history. (meta) Yes, what you eat matters. No, calorie counts aren't the whole story. The story is complicated, and different for everyone. Some people don't get fat even if they pound Twinkies(tm). Some people get fat and stay fat in spite of going to all types of extremes — or even just eating healthy and getting exercise. (Thankfully, I seem to respond fairly well to that combination, when I bother to stick with it...) The science of what precisely makes people fat is not precisely settled, but I leave you with a reminder that poop pills may yet be the answer, even before we're clear on why they work.

If doctors could establish your health status from excrement [...]

Are you really trying to dispute the utility of stool and urine analysis to medical diagnosis?

Oh i get it. This is slashdot. You didn't bother reading the actual article so you don't understand the context for my comment. The article we discussed is based on BMI. And estimates at that. Here: From the study. Background Underweight and severe and morbid obesity are associated with highly elevated risks of adverse health outcomes. We estimated trends in mean body-mass index (BMI), which characterises its population distribution, and in the prevalences of a complete set of BMI categories for adults in all countries. This despite the fact that problems with BMI have been known for decades. http://www.webmd.com/diet/how-... Further, BMI does not take into account age, gender, or muscle mass. Nor does it distinguish between lean body mass and fat mass. As a result, some people, such as heavily muscled athletes, may have a high BMI even though they don't have a high percentage of body fat. In others, such as elderly people, BMI may appear normal even though muscle has been lost with aging. Take for example, basketball player Michael Jordan: ''When he was in his prime, his BMI was 27-29, classifying him as overweight, yet his waist size was less than 30,'' says Michael Roizen, MD. That's one reason some experts think waist circumference can be a better overall health measurement than BMI. So they estimated trends based on something that doesn't take into account age, gender, or muscle mass. It may not be true for slashdotters generally, but it's always been true for me. Despite low body fat and the ability to play ultimate frisbee or downhill skill 6 to 8 hours a day, I was always "obese" by BMI measures so I hold the measure in disdain. At best, the study merits looking in deeper with measurements that are accurate and reliable. Anyway.. of for a mini-vacation so we are probably done here.

Mind you, hospitals aren't all that sterile. In an article less than a year old, it was estimated that ~4% of hospital patients acquired infections while in the hospital. And having family members on a hospital staff, I've experienced how infectious diseases tend to concentrate in hospitals. MRSA infections of surgical wounds come immediately to mind. . .but less serious infectious diseases seem to cluster in hospitals as well, like colds and influenzas. . .

Since facebook users are generally less intelligent; Sleep deprivation lowers IQ; surprise surprise those now dumber users spend more time on it.

http://www.edublox.com/sleep-d...
http://www.webmd.com/sleep-dis...

and mitochondrial DNA from surrogate

It depends.

Not all surrogate pregnancies work that way. A Surrogate could just be someone carrying the baby for a couple where the female has various issues preventing carrying a baby to term.

http://www.webmd.com/infertili...

According to that article in fact, you are completely wrong. I have however heard of what you are speaking of, I just don't recall what it is called, but apparently it isn't surrogacy. What you speak of is the current therapy for mitochondrial disorders where they use a viable egg from someone else where the DNA is removed and the DNA from the desired mother is injected instead.

It is more complex than just being a victim of abuse and in the complexity you start to find solutions.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-he...

Then choose a different site. You are supposed to go to the doctor once per year, and all the med plans I have had made those visits free to encourage you to go. According to the pets site of WebMD, you should at least take them once a year for their shots:
http://pets.webmd.com/features...

Is that a better source of information for you?

My favorite is heart burn meds. Instead of not eating spicy foods so much, people opt to take magic drugs to keep it at bay. It's mind blowing.

Actually, spicy foods aren't nearly as big a trigger for heartburn as good old oranges and lemonade.

They can contribute to heartburn, but not, by a long shot, always.

I have chronic heartburn. It sucks. I used to eat VERY spicy foods, but my doctor told me to cut it out for reasons of heartburn.

The result? Not one iota of change. I found that the triggers for me are acidic foods, like pasta/pizza, fruits and many vegetables, and a lot of dairy cause problems for me.

The meds help a bit, but not always.

Another interesting article talking a little less positive about this:

Quote: “No information was taken on the amount of drugs or other things that might have to be used to raise them".

Quote: The main change to the salmon caused them to produce more growth hormone, but tests used by the company couldn’t detect how much they were making, according to Hansen. “It was like using a radar gun that doesn’t detect speeds below 125 miles per hour, and from that concluding that there’s no evidence that cars and bicycles move at different speeds,”

Here's the link: http://www.webmd.com/food-reci...

A couple points about food stamps.

1) In Ohio the typical benefit is $132 a month per person. That's $4 per day. It's possible to pull that off if you eat very little, don't mind eating poorly, and budget really well. If you have a little one around, and you aren't really good at saying no, you can end up short really easily, at which point you're shopping for food hungry the day your EBT card fills up.

2) And if you're shopping for food hungry with a little one in tow that perfectly calculated $264 budget that would last the two of you all month goes out the door real fast. They love snacks. They are hungry so they need something. And they are in a store that has been specifically designed to show them a snack every 30 second. It's very, very hard to tell your kid "no we can't have that," 50 times while food shopping, when you know he's only asking because you failed to feed him an adequate breakfast this morning, particularly if his friends are either not on food stamps or have moms who suck at budgeting, so the little munchkin thinks that Oreos are just something that loved children eat ALL THE TIME because when he's at his friends' houses he eats Oreos and his little friends don't tell him they're only eating Oreo's because it's the 8th, the EBT card filled up on the 4th, they have a friend over, and on the 3rd they'd be eating ramen and Ritz and no friends would be allowed.

3) Most people can't even conceive of eating this poorly, much less feeding kids this poorly. A 250-calorie TV Dinner is gonna be $1. That's not a meal, but it's a full quarter of your budget. More in October (31 days), less in February (28). You could probably spend under $1 on breakfast if you used those ginorous bags of cereal, and the cheapest brand of milk; but that's only gonna be another couple hundred calories and you've blown almost half your budget. And you;re eating the same thing every morning.

So you need lunch, fruits/vegetables, and drinks that add up to 1,400 calories or so a day if you're a woman (a man would need to stretch that cash to 2,000 or so calories). For $2. That's probably doable, but when I was on food stamps I never pulled that shit off. Maybe if I'd been a good cook. I was making enough part-time to eat really big lunches (600-1,500 calorie) at fast food joints, and that's how survived.

• The impact on the environment
• The impact on your body for certain kinds of meat
• Objections to killing and consuming animal flesh

I eat (and enjoy) meat myself, but if there's a way to get that texture and flavor (texture is the most important part, I think) in a healthier and more sustainable way - I'd love to see it happen so long as the final result is actually more efficient to produce and healthier to eat. As you say, many artificial foods have ended up being worse than what they were meant to replace.

He's not the dumb one here.

I love my neti pot! it makes me feel like i just experienced a huge surfing wipeout, but i never had to leave home!

They do a great job getting rid of nasal clogs without putting too much pressure on the inner ear. used appropriately, nasal irrigation is effective source

Here is an article from 2010.

Right. You're comparing covert extramarital sex to eating a cookie dough blizzard, but I'm naive.

We're talking about a website whose slogan is "Life is short. Have an affair.", and those who get caught using it without their spouse's consent. You can't do that and expect your spouse to remain committed to you.

Also, your google-fu sucks. You've described "polyamory", which is quite uncommon. You may have an "open relationship" with your partner, and that's cool. But it's not the topic of this discussion.

My reply to this would be that your eating habits changed without you realize it. This is very, very common, especially if you're spending several more hours a day asleep.

Except that there is evidence that sleep loss affects your metabolic rate. And while this Mayo Clinic article suggests that sleep deprivation can cause cravings, I can tell you right now that I was on the exact same diet before and after the treatment. But if you bother to Google you can find article after article that quote different studies that suggest that sleep deprivation leads to a slower metabolic rate. So you can go ahead and put your head in the sand and think whatever you want, but doctors and scientists pretty much all disagree with you.

I guess these Ph.Ds need to stop using the term then.

https://www.psychologytoday.co...
http://psychcentral.com/blog/a...
http://www.webmd.com/mental-he...

Oh, and they need to remove it from the DSM
http://dsm.psychiatryonline.or...

> diet drinks actually cause your pancreas to go throwing a lot of insulin into your blood stream contributing to insulin resistance

No, they don't - study after study shows no direct insulin response to saccharine, sucralose and aspartame UNLESS accompanied by calorie intake.

However, there is some evidence that diet beverages will change the composition of gut bacteria, which will impact your insulin + blood sugar. The study has been criticized for its small sample size and other methodological issues, but I'm sure we'll find out more as studies progress.

Simple answer in the case of Equal , if you read the ingredients list on the packet it contains Dextrose, which is a simple carbohydrate.. a di-sachharide to be exact. Dextrose is what they make the "Glucose tablets" out of that type 1 diabetics take to raise their blood sugar when they take too much insulin and get into hypoglycemia. Given that simple fact that most people overlook, Equal will affect your carbohydrate metabolism and the more you take the more it will affect it. (I know people who will take 10 equal packets and shamelessly throw it into a coffee thinking there is nothing wrong there, but even if their blood sugar doesn't go up to 400 mg/dll, it still causes some insulin response to deal with that amount of dextrose.) Dextrose is also the sugar that is fermented when making beer.. FYI.

> diet drinks actually cause your pancreas to go throwing a lot of insulin into your blood stream contributing to insulin resistance

No, they don't - study after study shows no direct insulin response to saccharine, sucralose and aspartame UNLESS accompanied by calorie intake.

However, there is some evidence that diet beverages will change the composition of gut bacteria, which will impact your insulin + blood sugar. The study has been criticized for its small sample size and other methodological issues, but I'm sure we'll find out more as studies progress.

Nice. But narcotics are not generally used for ADHD. The big two (Ritalin and Adderall) are stimulants. In fact, there aren't even any narcotics in the non-stimulant or other medications lists on WebMD:

http://www.webmd.com/add-adhd/...