What were the chances the “food pyramid” and the scientists who told you to eat sugar and white bread all day to lose weight were going to be correct about the dangers of red meat?
New research that claims red and processed meat is probably not harmful to our health has caused controversy among experts who maintain people should cut down.
The World Health Organization has classified red and processed meats as cancer-causing. Public health bodies worldwide urge people to limit their intake of red and processed meat to reduce their cancer risk. The NHS advises that people who eat 90g of meat a day – equivalent to three thin slices of roast meat – should cut down to 70g.
Aside from public health, calls are multiplying for people to cut back on meat consumption because of the climate emergency and the greenhouse gas emissions that come from animal farming.
But the 14-member international team led by Bradley Johnston an associate professor of community health at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, concluded that those who like meat should not stop on health grounds. “Based on the research, we cannot say with any certainty that eating red or processed meat causes cancer, diabetes or heart disease,” he said.
If you have any doubts about the legitimacy of the study, keep in mind that the critics are whining about the way the study was “wrong to exclude environmental concerns about damage to the planet.”
What does that have to do with personal health?
The medical normalization of mental illness is, unsurprisingly, leading directly to child abuse:
“Michelle Cretella was the first one to label it correctly as child abuse,” the endocrinologist told PJ Media. “When a person cannot consent to being harmed in a medical study or a medical setting — when they cannot be aware of the harms — it is an ethical problem.”
Indeed, Laidlaw compared these transgender “treatments” to the horrific experiments performed by Nazi scientists under Adolf Hitler. “They were doing experiments on people who could not consent.”
“If you have children, they can’t consent because they may not have the intellectual capacity or emotional maturity to understand the consequences of what’s going to happen to them,” he argued. “Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones — they’re going to be infertile. What 11-year-old is ready to have a kid? How would they know what that means? If you want to fully inform a child, you really cannot. Even if you tell the parents, how can the parent decide it? You can’t really do it.”
“That’s one of the problems with the NIH study. There’s no real way for a kid to consent to this and the harms are very great,” Laidlaw said.
May not consent? They legally cannot consent. But it’s not even remotely a surprise that the satanic world-healers are attempting to normalize and legalize this form of child abuse. Because they are absolutely slavering to normalize and legalize every other form of it as well. Child abuse is as central to their religion as Communion is to Christians.
For me, the most remarkable thing is discovering that for fifty years, no one ever bothered to test for negative cognitive effects on women taking the contraceptive pill:
More than 100 million women around the world use oral contraceptives. Over the years, research has been able to explore and identify much of their physical effects, but what about their psychological effects?
Dr. Alexander Lischke of the University of Greifswald, Germany, notes how “remarkably little” is known about the effects of birth control pills on emotion, cognition, and behavior.
As part of a new study, published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, Lischke and his research team recruited 95 healthy women — 42 of whom were on the pill and 53 who were not — for an emotion recognition task. The aim was to find out if using the pill could have any sort of impairment on their ability to recognize emotions.
“We assumed that these impairments would be very subtle, indicating that we had to test women’s emotion recognition with a task that was sensitive enough to detect such impairments,” he explained. “We, thus, used a very challenging emotion recognition task that required the recognition of complex emotional expressions from the eye region of faces.”
Both groups of women had no problem in recognizing basic expressions like those of happiness or fear. But when it came to more complex emotional expressions like pride or contempt, women on the pill were 10 percent less accurate compared to their counterparts.
Keep this sort of thing in mind when you assume that just because a drug or a medical regimen is in wide use, its range of adverse effects have been scientifically studied.
So much for Chief Justice Roberts’s clever little interpretive construction:
A conservative federal judge in Texas on Friday ruled the Affordable Care Act “invalid” on the eve of the sign-up deadline for next year. But with appeals certain, even the Trump White House said the law will remain in place for now.
In a 55-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that last year’s tax cut bill knocked the constitutional foundation from under “Obamacare” by eliminating a penalty for not having coverage. The rest of the law cannot be separated from that provision and is therefore invalid, he wrote.
But… but… precedent! This is not who we are! You can’t turn the clock back! This decision is interesting, because one of the most important reasons for the complete failure of the Conservative movement is its philosophical refusal to ever attempt to take back ground that has been lost.
It’s also a good reminder of how the shenanigans upon which the Left so often relies serve as structural weak links that can be utilized to bring down everything that is built upon them.
I have to admit, the low percentage of cancer money dedicated to researching pediatric cancers kind of shocked me.
Joey Bosa, defensive end, Los Angeles Chargers. The other day, I was discussing with Bosa a column he was doing for The MMQB about a teenage boy he’d met in Houston, Sean, who had twice beaten cancer. Bosa decided to let Sean design his cleats for “My Cause, My Cleats,” the program in which the league allowed players to wear cleats designed to promote whatever cause is nearest and dearest to them. Bosa decided on pediatric cancer. So instead of asking Bosa for his Most Valuable Possession, I’ll let him pen his feelings about his Most Valuable Cleats, designed by his high-school buddy.
“Sean educated me on a lot of things about cancer. He told me, ‘Did you know that out of all the money raised for cancer research, only 4 percent goes to pediatric cancer?’ That just shocked me. That is not my world at all. I never even thought of it. I just thought how unfair that seemed. Four percent? Four percent? That just made a huge impact on me … I asked Sean if he wanted to design my cleats this year. I think he was pretty excited about it. I connected him with my rep at adidas, and I let Sean do whatever he wanted. You probably know breast cancer is pink. Pediatric cancer is gold. So they came up with these cleats.
“It’s Sean’s message to the cancer community: CHILDREN DESERVE #MORETHAN4. I love it. I think it’s fantastic. And I hope America gets to see his message from coast to coast.”
That’s ridiculous. It makes no sense to devote so much research and health care money to old people who have already lived their lives at the expense of children who haven’t had the opportunity to live them yet. The NFL should trade pink for gold.
The NFL is doing a lot that is wrong and is justly suffering the consequences of Roger Goodell’s stupid decisions. But one recent initiative I do like is the way they are permitting the players to use their cleats to support various causes.