Certainly? You shouldn't try to speak for everyone. You don't have any idea how many people like pilk and or dilk. ;-)
I think most adult people are offput at the thought of drinking human milk, but it's undeniably healthy, and almost everyone has done it.

There actually is a highly regarded chef working on pig milk cheese who claims it's delicious, it's not the milk that's the problem there, it's the milking. Sows are not docile and don't have easily milked teats. Same for bitches (female dogs). If they had udders, there would definitely be cultures milking them.

Mongols created an empire from near nothing in part by drinking large quantities of milk, even though it seems they were likely all lactose intolerant when that started. They found it worth the discomfort.
The Massai also owe their existence to drinking milk, and they seem exceptionally healthy.

While it's true, most of the world doesn't NEED milk, they do need calcium and milk may be the only source available when calcium rich vegetables aren't. From precursory research it seems a majority of people around the world do drink some milk, but not enough to meet daily calcium recommendations.

I'll hazard a guess based on your comments that you're vegan. Please don't be a stereotype and food shame non vegans, especially if you're going to be fast and loose with facts to do it.

That's what I thought. You have no idea what the expression means.

"Trump is winning....he's always been successful....the worm has turned."

Just more irrational nonsense. That's just like saying Trump is healthy, he's always been completely healthy, and he's now starting to overcome that poor health and finally get better.

*facepalm

1) I question your sources, because some of the earliest writings ever found were business ledgers dealing with selling grains as I understand it. Capitalism has been a thing since before writing was a thing.

2) um...I think those kids in China would dispute that....THEY made the Iphones, which created a smart phone market by being useful and fun (for most people).

3) do you believe capitalism and the industrial revolution started at the same time, or that capitalism has something to do with surfs, civil rights, or secularism? Capitalism applied to people is indentured servitude, what we lazily call slavery. Unfettered capitalism created a situation where civil rights needed to be delineated and codified, it didn't create them any more than wildfires created firemen imo.

Some people do educate themselves before acting or making purchases, but it's not the norm.

Capitalism says your poor neighbors should die, because capitalism says there is no value to human life...I did a term paper on that. Value is derived from a supply/demand equation, and there's such a glut of humanity that human life has a negative value.

The government paid for around 75% of the technology development. "...it paid for some of the technology...." is incredibly misleading, if technically correct (the best kind of correct). Without a healthy dose of socialism, progress slows to a crawl and only the privileged few can afford it.

1 word....flip-phones. ;-) (I don't even have one of those)

Sure.
For newts, it's everything.
Leaf litter, twigs and branches, and downed trees are all imperative for a healthy forest....as is periodic fire in most cases. They are habitat for most forest animals.
They also moderate soil humidity, keeping it from drying out to dust, and return nutrients to the soil for plants to utilize.

Few forests could survive being raked clean, none would remain healthy.

? Are you implying that famine and/or water shortages somehow preclude war and disease? I think they're major causes.

No, that's a myth. We have resources enough to do some amazing things if we properly apply them, not anything, and without the will to apply them, almost nothing. Having everything you need for success besides direction is a guarantee of failure.

Depends, if you remove the human factor and look only at total resources vs global need, there are still major logistic hurdles to just feeding everyone, not to mention resource problems if we want the biosphere to be healthy and not homogenized down to humans and our farm animals.

Odd, international law has been enforced since ww2 with only few exceptions with no WW3, only sanctions, bribes, and relatively minor skirmishes. I don't know where you get the idea that only a gun to the head might be coercive when a gun to the economy has worked so well for so long.

You should be hysterical. If you aren't shitting your pants over the state of the world, you aren't paying attention or you're absolutely delusional. Civilization and the habitatability of the planet are both on a clear path to collapse and people are busying themselves with arguments over will it be 50 years out or 100, or maybe 150 instead of making substantive changes to mitigate what's now unavoidable....or even prepare.
A hysterical voice is the only one I think indicates an understanding of the problem and total lack of a working solution.

@newtboy,
"Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out."

I'd argue bored maybe more often than confused. Although if we want to say that most of the problems society faces have their root causes in human nature, I think we can agree.

"I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise"

Here is where I see healthy skepticism distinguishing itself from covering eyes, ears and yelling not listening.

Our understanding of the global climate system is NOT sufficient to make that kind of high confidence claim about specific future outcomes. As you read past the head line and into the supporting papers you find that is the truth underneath. The final summary line you are citing sits atop multiple layers of assumptions and unspecified uncertainties that culminate in a very ephemeral 50% likelyhood disclaimer. It is stating that if all of the cumulative errors and unknowns all more or less don't matter. then we have models that suggest this liklyhood of an outcome...

This however sits atop the following challenges that scientists from different fields and specialities are focusing on improving.
1.Direct measurements of the global energy imbalance and corroboration with Ocean heat content. Currently, the uncertainties in our direct measurements are greater than the actual energy imbalance caused by the CO2 we've emitted. The CERES team measuring this has this plain as day in all their results.
2.Climate models can't get global energy to balance because the unknown or poorly modeled processes in them have a greater impact on the energy imbalance than human CO2. We literally hand tune the poorly known factors to just balance out the energy correctly, regardless of whether that models the given process better or not because the greater run of the model is worthless without a decent energy imbalance. This sits atop the unknowns regarding the actual measured imbalance to hope to simulate. 100% of the modelling teams that discuss their tuning processes again all agree on this.
3. Meta-analysis like you cited usually sit atop both the above, and attempt to rely on the models to get a given 2100 temperature profile, and then make their predictions off of that.

The theme here, is cumulative error and an underlying assumption of 'all other things being equal' for all the cumulative unknowns and errors. You can NOT just come in from all of that, present the absolute worst possible case scenario you can squeeze into and then declare that as the gold standard scientific results which must dictate policy...

Edit:that's very nearly the definition of cherry picking the results you want.

As BSR pointed out in the duplicate...

Hush now baby, baby, don't you cry.
Mama's gonna make all your nightmares come true.
Mama's gonna put all her fears into you.
Mama's gonna keep you right here under her wing.
She won't let you fly, but she might let you sing.
Mama's gonna keep baby cozy and warm.
Mama's gonna check out all your girlfriends for you.
Mama won't let anyone dirty get through.
Mama's gonna wait up until you get in.
Mama will always find out where you've been.
Mama's gonna keep baby healthy and clean.

I found it interesting how it started by describing a significant other pointing out your friends foibles as intentionally controlling and isolating you, then later suggests that you looking for these foibles and isolating yourself is a positive move. Telling someone to isolate themselves is controlling, telling them you notice and object to others disrespecting or abusing you may be consoling.

I also found it telling that the suggestions are "end it....or try to communicate", in that order. Sounded amazingly backward.
I feel like the writer has had a long string of toxic relationships and no healthy ones.

I've been with my wife since 92, married her in 98, we are the only people in either of our extended families still on our first marriage, so I do have some small experience with maintaining a healthy relationship.

I spend a lot of time blabbing about it, if that's what you mean :-)

As for maintaining a healthful diet, once you know what to put in the shopping cart it takes no more devotion than eating any other diet

It's essentially this https://www.drcarney.com/images/easyblog_shared/b2ap3_large_PCRM-Power-Plate-Small.PNG

which is very similar to the government's recommendations - https://i.dietdoctor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/myplate-467x425.jpg, minus the dairy. (Canada has recently dropped dairy from their government recommendations, so it's becoming a mainstream thing to accept that dairy is not required in the diet - and even the dairy industry themselves are starting to give up, no longer is their own biased research saying dairy is healthy, they've begun to settle with dairy is not harmful lol)


It is important to me, personally because my close relatives died from easily preventable diseases, and I myself suffered from nephrotic syndrome, which would have killed me. And I mean suffered, my wounds were opening up, I had ulcers appearing on my skin, my joints were swollen, and my muscle mass was wasting away because I was pee'ing out all my protein....... AND THEN I FIND OUT IT'S BASICALLY AN OPTIONAL ILLNESS - and my life is saved.

It absolutely pains me to see the western world with it's epidemic of obesity, diabetes, heart-disease, cancer, and less common diseases like multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis and so on, suffering unnecessarily like I did because they do not know the how easy it is to avoid, prevent, and often reverse these diseases. The vast majority of people could easily be healthy if they switched to a whole food plant-based diet. Not everyone, but most.

We're doing it to ourselves. We're giving ourselves these horrible diseases, and destroying the planet, and killing 80 billion land animals, and 2 trillion sea animals to make ourselves sick. To me it's pure insanity.

Maintaining a healthy separation of church and state is a conservative position.
Learn your own politics. *facepalm

http://archive.is/4CVqH

10 year plan. Twice as effective as the USSR's 5 year plans

...Fully rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, restoring our natural ecosystems (needed), dramatically expanding renewable power generation (needed, but it also doesn't mean we should be throwing money away on stupid shit like solar roadways), overhauling our entire transportation system (regional flights, which sort of make up around 70% of total flights, would be targeted for elimination and massively expensive (slower) electrical trains would be put in their place), upgrading all our buildings (most businesses are already moving to green solutions) , jumpstarting US clean manufacturing (see highly expensive and non-competitive with cheaper overseas mfg), transforming US agriculture (forcing a move from cows/pigs/chickens to plant based proteins)...

While we are at it, might as well do the following:

A job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security (Nice, but you can't just make these jobs available. They are supply and demand.)

High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools (Needed)

High-quality health care (Needed)

Clean air and water (Needed)

Healthy food (Subjective, is meat considered healthy?)

Safe, affordable, adequate housing (because this works, ie Projects...)

An economic environment free of monopolies (Technically this exists already, except in countries outside of the USA and EU)

Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work (SWEET! SIGN ME UP FOR THAT CHECK!!!)

I get that his spiel is comedy based, but the GND is about half reality and half looney tunes.

I, for one, am not trolling you. I agree that a vegetable based diet can have some healthy effects. I just do not see proof that it makes such a huge difference that it is a must follow plan. In addition, there are diets that limit the intake of certain proteins, like the Mediterranean diet, which have clearly shown to be just as effective as a non-animal based diet.

My major point of contention is that you are primarily posting videos that typically feature people or organizations that are WELL KNOWN for their tendency to overstate or blur the effectiveness of a Vegan diet. We are not herbivores, we are omnivores, and you can eat a protein restricted diet that is just as effective. But the PCRM and it's flunkies like Dr. Gregor would have you believe it is Vegan or nothing.

Show me a study that isn't by a well known Vegan doctor who, btw, helped Oprah jumpstart an entirely unnecessary mad cow disease scare back in 1996.

Give me a link from a person who isn't described like this on their wikipedia page:

"Retired physician Harriet A. Hall, who is known as a skeptic in the medical community,[23][24][25] has written that, while it is well-accepted that it is more healthy to eat a plant-based diet than a typical Western diet, Greger often overstates the known benefits of such a diet as well as the harm caused by eating animal products (for example, in a talk, he claimed that a single meal rich in animal products can "cripple" one's arteries), and he sometimes does not discuss evidence that contradicts his strong claims."

A SINGLE MEAL can cripple your arteries. One meal. This is the person you are linking me to.

I should link you to Jillian Mai Thi Epperly and her 'jilly juice' which she claims expunges Candida from the body, and so by drinking a gallon of the juice every day, one can cure themselves of virtually any ailment, including autism, cancer, HIV, Down syndrome, and homosexuality.[2] The creator also claims that the juice can regrow lost limbs.

You don't have Vegan superpowers. At best you have a slightly better chance to live longer than someone else with a similar genetic makeup. That is science, that is fact.

It's not time you lack, I got an A in statistics which I took after advanced placement B/C calculus, thank you.
Please stop hyper exaggerating the danger of all animal products and the benefits of veganism.

No, we're acting like +1% lifetime risk of one type of cancer, from 5%-6%, is a totally acceptable level of risk to trade for a lifetime of pleasure when taken knowingly, and is a far cry from +18% every time you eat bacon. It's probably far less than the additional risk of drinking municipal water, or breathing anywhere East of the West coast, certainly exponentially less than breathing air in any major metropolitan area, or living within 25 miles of a military base or airport.

I'm also acting like people who lie about or misrepresent the stats only prove their position is untenable and that they're untrustworthy. If 1% total increased lifetime risk is enough to make your point, why erroneously claim +18% per serving? It makes it so easy to dismiss and overlook any real point you might have had.

Nothing is unanimous, and that goes double for nutritional advice. Somewhere there's a doctor that insists you can't possibly get enough nitrates, most would say if you're healthy go ahead and have some bacon...in moderation. My doctor and numerous documentaries say the stress of worrying incessantly about every little risk factor is a much bigger risk factor than almost any other for innumerable disorders and diseases. I'll take his advice, thanks.

And what exactly does veganism have to do with alcohol consumption? The vast majority of alcohol is vegan friendly.

Vegans have nothing to gain from decreased alcohol consumption.


----
Also Dr.Greger makes no claims. He simply reads out the research from a world wide scope of researchers, none of which are vegan.

And cherry picking what exactly? He's presented literally 10s of thousands of research papers all from unrelated researchers. And it's not like he's picking out some fringe groups, he's quoting the biggest health organisations in the world.

While it's easy to call him a cherry picker, I challenge anyone to find any credible evidence of cherry picking. I'm yet to hear back from someone over the last 6 years.

And I also challenge you to find an article that isn't funded or tied to the egg/milk/beef/fish industry which claims that eating x animal product is healthy.

Even easier, find an industry funded study which shows the detrimental effects of their own product. You won't, because they are inherently biased - an industry would never publish something that would hurt their bottom line. And no he doesn't ignore or cherry pick around industry funded studies, he exposes their tricks and data manipulation as well. That's not cherry picking, that's proper analysis.

And actually thanks to the freedom of information act, we can see how many studies they hide from us (when they don't like the results), and only publish the ones that suit their revenue centered agenda.

And this is why he's labelled a cherry picker - revenue loss. Broccoli ain't making anyone rich.

Let me put it into perspective:

He did a few video on how those WIFI sensitivity diseases are fake, and the comments are insane - because it's hurting people's income. And this is a pretty niche market, so you can imagine what a billion dollar industry would attempt to do to discredit him. Of course, they never address the research, just him.