Yes people die from a lot, so the goal is to reduce it where ever possible instead doing the digestive equivalent of the bird box challenge.

And again, even if it was just 1%, that is millions of of people 50,000 people's mourning families would disagree that it's statistically insignificant.

Also your stats are way off it's not 1% it's 18% for every 50g according to the WHO after reviewing 800 studies.

https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr240_E.pdf


Lovely of you to claim propaganda, but of course, the bias is all yours here - or are you going to tell me you don't enjoy bacon?

On a population scale that is huge.

If 1% of bacon lovers in the US get cancer, that's millions of people suffering and dying unnecessarily.

And indeed the stats back this up, 140,000 people are diagnosed every year, 50,000 people die from just colon cancer, year after year after year.

Where's the supposed propaganda?

Video Title: Slurring guy on the internet defends alcohol consumption, jesus wept lol.

And let's talk about bias for a minute. Nobody is drinking alcohol for the protective effects for the 3 cancers it apparently protects against.Aaron is clearly trying to make himself feel better about his bad habits.

Moderate alcohol is not protective against 3 types of cancers, it's merely associated with it, because people who drink moderately are in a certain demographic, age, class, social/economical, education etc. and the studies that are shown in the nutritionfacts.org video control for these kinds of things.

I'm not sure if you watched the video , but they show research which says that the alcohol industry use the same tactics as big tobacco do (that Aaron is perpetuating) to keep the public confused.

The tactic Aaron is using, is cherry picking a weak study, debunking their shitty method, and then using it to dismiss all other credible evidence. It's effectively a strawman, because he did nothing to address the hundreds of studies with strong evidence.


TL:DR ALCOHOL IS A GROUP 1 CARCINOGEN - IT CAUSES CANCER:

EVERY MEDICAL BODY RECOMMENDS ZERO CONSUMPTION

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.

*kill

Indeed, your ratio is basically the opposite, even with the pills. But perhaps it will improve over time.

(often though these drugs don't fix the root cause, they address the symptoms which means you'll be on some form of pills forever, until you fix the underlying issue, which the doctor should have mentioned, but a lot of doctors are so disheartened these days because their patients rarely listen, or are scared of being called 'fat shamers' so they don't bother with the speech anymore)

Take a look at the success stories on ForksOverKnives.com we aren't exactly miserable.

When you feel for yourself how good life is when you are the master of your health and therefore fate, life becomes far far better. It's powerful, your whole perception of the world will change, and the fleeting pleasure you get from Butter or bacon doesn't compare, and of course we're eating cusine from across the world. We've given up nothing, just changed the ingredients.


I know yall think im a biased vegan, which is why I like to refer people to the success stories on plant based websites. You can see the life and passion return into people's eyes, there lives are transformed. The weight-loss is a mere side effect of being healthy.


https://www.forksoverknives.com/the-10-most-popular-plant-based-success-stories-of-2018/

Well there we go niaspan. Mystery solved

Why not fix your cholesterol with a whole foods diet instead? It's cheaper and with fewer side effects(only good ones). Of course work with your doctor if you do ever decide to give it a test run. Either way best of health to you sir.

Hmm appears that I made a typo. can I edit the video url? The YouTube tag should be a lowercase L instead of a 'k' on the end. Derp.

The reason why we still have human pilots in fighters is because you can't jam or hijack a pilots brain. Any machine that is remotely controlled can be jammed at the very least. Leaving it unresponsive to commands. The exception here is that it could be pre programmed to perform a specific bunch of tasks, perhaps even something as advanced as air to air combat but, it loses a lot of flexibility. And it can be easily exploited.

E. G. you know a robot fighter jet is on it's way. Jam it so it cannot be called to cancel it's mission. Put some children into the target area.... That can happen and does with real pilots too, but they are able check and recheck as many times as they feel necessary either their JTACs or the amazing optics on modern jets giving a clear picture from over 10 miles away.

And that if course is with the ethical concerns of having an automatic killing machine fly around, which people like Stephen hawking warn us about. Perhaps in the immediate future the danger is quite low with only collateral incidents, but can you imagine say Trump with this kind of power. A trained soldier regardless of being broken in during training and even with all of the testosterone and adrenaline flowing through his body is still a compassionate and thinking human being. The likelihood of ordering a military wide atrocity is very low compared to an army of machineswhich will carry out any tasks no matter how gruesome. Can you imagine what Trump would do if people were no longer in the loop to share the responsibilities and burden of war? And by extention, that technology would likely be used to control the populace. You think the police in the US have there fair share of power tripping jackasses slipping into the service, well imagine if every officer was basically a silicon version of Trump. That's the worst ki d of robocop movie ever lol