LOL very close to what I do for a living, actually. Slightly less messy than in the video, pre-saturated, steam expanded and hardened on site, also works as a chimney flue liner.

Democrat’s policies created the insanely great economic opportunities that made Walgreen think it was worth opening 22 extra stores in a small city. Now, high rent (because SF is an insanely popular place to live) and over saturation are obviously more costly than a minor increase in petty shoplifting.

Be clear, Walgreens isn’t closing all their SF locations…which they would if it was just about shoplifting. There are still 20 open locations in the city. 42 was just insane.

This reminds me of Texan politicians calling California an economically failed state, when Texas barely broke even in 2020, lost money in 2019, and California had a $36 billion surplus and supplies services.

I'm regurgitating the numbers Dr Birx used, and comparing our outbreak to other nations that took it seriously like S Korea and New Zealand. If we had used the same serious action S Korea had, our death rate per 100000 would be an astonishing 1/60th of what our death rates were in the first 6 months or so. Just universal mask wearing would have cut our deaths by an estimated >1/4, 130000 fewer deaths, and slowed the rate of new cases significantly, but Trump fought against them.

Here's the link on that data...., granted slightly dated.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/23/how-many-coronavirus-deaths-are-truly-attributable-trump/

Remember, the Whitehouse said 100000-240000 possible deaths, around the same time Trump said deaths would never rise over 20000, using the lower of those numbers and blaming Trump's policies for the excess we are >80% his fault now, using Trump's promised numbers over 96% are blood on his hands.

There's also the fact that after knowing about the uncontrolled epidemic in WuHan Trump let over 40000 people (just not Chinese nationals) back in the country from that region with no tests available and no quarantine except for those obviously extremely sick. An immediate and actual travel lockdown could have made our deaths zero, and definitely would have made them exponentially lower.

Then there's the dismantling of the Global Health Security and Biodefense unit he closed that likely could have identified the outbreak in China much earlier and again, made our numbers zero. It's exactly what they were created to avoid.

I honestly feel 80- 90% was being generous, in fact there's a real possibility that a thoughtful adult president would have made any number of intelligent decisions, any one of which could have avoided the pandemic altogether or minimized infections enormously, even minimizing the Chinese epidemic.

I do agree, Biden is doing much better at taking it seriously and acting like rapid vaccination is important, but still isn't doing enough. I would prefer an enforced national mask mandate, mandatory social distancing, school closings until vaccination saturation, etc until we have herd immunity....not half assed measures like 50% capacity at bars and restaurants, with few business shutdowns and zero enforcement, pretending it's over every time infection rates dip.

Is anyone puzzled that a weapons system that is supposed to be able to hit a just-under-super-sonic missile warhead taking evasive action---would miss a boat bouncing around at no more than 50 mph? and does it make anyone curious about how well those systems would work against an actual missile? or missile saturation attack?

He did mention fish/white meat, however he was making the point that meats aren't what is making them healthy - the Mediterraneans are healthy despite these animal foods. They are healthy because of the large intake of whole plant foods, as is the case in Japan.

And we know this, because within Japan itself there's a clear relationship between health, and amount of animal products consumed. The traditional Okinawan diet (the place which has the most centenarians int he world) is just 6% calories from animal products, the rest being from sweet potato and rice and veg. Where as mainland Japan where they eat more animal products they don't do as well as their Okinawan neighbors.

This relationship of animal food intake & rates of chronic diseases works on a local level or a global level. Less is always better, all the way to none (Loma Linda 7th day Adventists many of which are vegan by religion tend do the best out of all of the blue zones, when it comes to chronic disease).



------


Omega 3 is present in so many plant foods - such as flaxseed/linseed, hemp, chia, and even sea algae (which is where the fish get their omega 3 from)

The benefit of getting omega 3 from plant sources means almost no saturated fat, no cholesterol, no mercury, no IGF-1 raising protein structures (and no antibiotics if you are eating farmed fish). Also they say the ocean will be fishless by 2048..... (which also coincides with the Post Atomic Horror era for the Trekkies out there lol)

Fish also don't have any fiber, (the one macro nutrient everyone pretends doesn't exist, and most people are deficient in). Stay regular and prevent diverticulitis/diverticulitis, and avoid hemorrhoids, and even varicose veins.

Flax also contains lignans which prevents/treats prostate cancer https://www.healthline.com/health/prostate-cancer/flaxseed-and-prostate-cancer.


You just get so much more nutrition out of plants over all. Animal products tend to have a higher amount of a single compound or nutrient, but they have a lot of baggage with it. It's like buying a car, you don't necessarily want the one with the biggest engine, the total package is what's important.


------

Whether or not Barnard is a vegan shill, doesn't change the nutritional profiles of foods as shown above.

It also doesn't change the fact he looks, acts and speaks amazing for someone that's 65 years old - clearly putting his theory into practice with wonderful results. And while that is anecdotal, that's certainly something nobody would say about Atkins, or Loran Cordain (Paleo advocate) or Jimmy Moore (Keto advocate), who all look like they could drop dead any minute (and Atkins literally did drop dead).

Your video, Saturation Diving- You're in a different world, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The data of the study came out of Germany, where the effects of a change in temperature are much more moderate than in many other areas. Basically, this decline is attributed mostly due to farming, the saturation of everything with pesticides, and, generally speaking, the destruction of the ecosphere. Even worse, this is in a country with comparably extensive regulation on all these matters, unlike, say, India.

As you say, this really is no bueno.

Driving past fields of rapeseed in the late '90s meant a windshield full of bugs. We used to head into the fields wearing yellow shirts just to see who can get the densest armor of bugs. Now, I can walk past the very same fields outside the town I grew up in with less than 5 bugs on a yellow shirt.

Or how about another anecdote: when I grew up, barbecue in my (grand-)parents yard meant paying attention to all the wasps, so that you don't swallow one by accident. I haven't seen a single one over several barbecues this year. Bees and bumblebees are still around, though less plentiful, but wasps are a complete no-show. Haven't seen a hornet in two years.

Essentially there is no such thing as white light or indeed pink light. White light is when all your color receptors are saturated, what you think of as pink is when blue and red light is combined, and the possible wavelength combinations in both cases are sadly endless and impossible to represent fully in a simple table or graph.

Pink is a relatively easy color for monitors because, unlike for example yellow, pink is always a combination of blue and red light, while real life yellow is represented by a combination of blue and green light on your monitor and blue and green receptors in your eye. So yellow exists but we only ever see its representation as a mix of green and blue, while pink is a virtual colour all round :-)

Yes I suspect fluorescense is at play in this case somehow.

With RGB and CMYk the key word is representatiom. There are real life impressions of colours, and then there is the wish for standardisation and representation, but the eye is a very imperfect tool and representation is approximate. Real life paintings are awesome and you dont even come close watching photographs or computer monitors or prints in books.

Yep.

Sugar is basically rocket fuel for your body, it's insanely useful for burning large amounts of energy quickly, and since we evolved in a low sugar environment, your body is trained to want it.

But these days we live in a sugar saturated environment where most people don't do anywhere near as much physical work, so the sugar is never burnt off. It's not meant to be a staple food.

Also, your liver basically treats sugar the same as alcohol. Not only does it make you fat, but it also suppresses your bodies natural "I'm full" reaction. Worst of all are high fructose corn syrup soft drinks.

Basically, if you wouldn't give your kid a beer... don't give them coke either. Coke = beer without the drunkenness.

I live in Austin, Texas. Unfortunately for my Bahn and Pho addictions, Austin is sort of a high priced area for Vietnamese food. Back in the 90's, you could could get it cheap and plentiful in the few locations that served it; now with the foodies and all the transplants there are tons of places, but they are all expensive.

Houston is still pretty cheap because it is saturated, so when I am down there I can score good, reasonably priced Vietnamese food.

Eh, realistically we have had tragically bad Presidents before, we just didn't have this level of media saturation.

This opinion that color grading can be 'right' or 'wrong' is pretty ridiculous. It's just a creative decision, if you don't like it get a job in vfx and work your way up over many years until people respect your opinion enough to allow you to make the calls, then you can tell them to make everything really saturated and contrasty.

But don't bother with flaxseed oil. It's popular now because it makes the skillet look nice and black and shiny, but many people have found that the seasoning tends to crack and flake off on the long term. Canola oil is fine, as it has a high smoke point (resulting in stronger bonds) and it's easy to acquire. (Other, saturated fats like Crisco are well-liked for their ease of use.)

Not a great song, a little heavy handed, but some fantastic visuals. Pikachu in the wasteland... haha.

I actually experienced something like the bit @1:24 a few weeks ago, while hiking in a national forest (in the fall, in New England). I whipped out my phone to snap a pic of a fern,and noticed that, despite being surrounded by absolute beauty, my S3 still pushes the saturation up on the display when I'm taking a picture. Everything was already so colorful that it was immediately noticeable, and gave me the horrible impression of facsimile. Very much the real version of that bit from the video.

Lots of tech shit is getting freaky lately.

OK, assuming what you say is correct (I'm not taking the time now to check) you have a point, but the stats, even if only 1/2 as bad as it seems, still show there's absolutely no equivalence.

Well, if you ate like that, no wonder you think meat is deadly. Eating like that, it is. Eaten in moderation, meaning <50g of CURED meats, and probably less than 1/3 lb of non cured lean red meats, the conclusion I came to is reasonable....that it's in no way comparable to smoking in it's danger. it's not even comparable if you eat 5 times the studied portion of cured meats, although it is clearly not healthy to do so. I eat < 1/2 lb of steak, on the rare occasions I eat it. I eat 1/2 a chicken breast on a normal day, baked. Because I eat good meat, properly prepared, in moderation, there's little to no statistical increase in danger to my health over eating pure vegetarian.

No sir, your stats are wrong....here's direct from the WHO.....
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
12. How many cancer cases every year can be attributed to consumption of processed meat and red meat?

According to the most recent estimates by the Global Burden of Disease Project, an independent academic research organization, about 34 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to diets high in processed meat.
Eating red meat has not yet been established as a cause of cancer. However, if the reported associations were proven to be causal, the Global Burden of Disease Project has estimated that diets high in red meat could be responsible for 50 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide.
These numbers contrast with about 1 million cancer deaths per year globally due to tobacco smoking, 600 000 per year due to alcohol consumption, and more than 200 000 per year due to air pollution.

So, it's 34000 cancer deaths for cured meats (and IF the correlative results with red meat are in fact causative, another 50000 worldwide for red meat) VS 1000000 cancer tobacco deaths. So no, it's not 2/3 there, it's at best, IF red meat is the cause of cancers at the highest level possible (not at all proven) it's 1/12 of the way there....around 8.4%. Agreed, that's not good, but no where near what you (and he) claims.

Cholesterol and saturated fat only MAY cause heart disease and diabetes, not 'do without a doubt', and then usually only in high levels (in normal people). They raise the risk factor for those diseases, but do not automatically cause heart disease and/or diabetes, even in people with incredibly high levels.

Research indicates that you missed the mark with the 644000 number, it's more like 34000 (and maybe another 50000, unproven) according to the WHO, I'll take the stats of the organization whose study is being discussed.

So if you look at the real numbers, it's still not comparable at all. Cancer, and death rates are orders of magnitude different, far more than 10 times higher for smoking with every possible benefit of a doubt given to meats toxicity/effects, so not at all easily matched. Sorry.

(and you also appear to be 100% wrong about cancer survivability)
http://www.Cancer.org -Colon cancer-For stage IIB cancer, the survival rate is about 63%. The 5-year relative survival rate for stage IIIA colon cancers is about 89%. For stage IIIB cancers the survival rate is about 69%, and for stage IIIC cancers the survival rate is about 53%.
http://www.lung.org - Lung cancer-The five-year survival rate for lung cancer is 54 percent for cases detected when the disease is still localized (within the lungs). However, only 15 percent of lung cancer cases are diagnosed at an early stage. For distant tumors (spread to other organs) the five-year survival rate is only 4 percent.

So, to summarize, colon cancer 53%-89% survivability (depending largely on when it's caught) VS lung cancer 4% (for 85% of cases, and 54% for the 15% of lucky few with early detections)