Someone needs to get to the bottom of this! Are they are aren't they? I NEED TO KNOW!!

(edit)
Seems it depends on what you call a Daddy Longleg. "There is one "daddy-longlegs" that is a spider, and a couple of thousand species that are not spiders."
http://www.burkemuseum.org/blog/myth-daddy-longlegs-kind-spider

Holy shit, he has the same Time-Life collection of Myths and Legends books that I have!

So clean up your drains with boiling salt water? That's enough to make me question everything -in- this video. I'd suspect it all of being just a collection of urban myths.

Many, if not most, that oppose places like Planned Parenthood, and oppose most methods of birth control, oppose it, because they think it encourages promiscuity. Sex is of course limited only to marriage in their world view, which is why heavy red states have abstinence only education... which tends to result in them having the highest teen and repeat teen pregnancy rates. And some would argue that the only function of sex is for procreation. The Bible even forbid pulling out (Gen. 38:8–10), though one could argue that was for one guy in particular. Anyhow, basically they see pregnancy as part of God's design and purpose for sex. The fact it has physical pleasures, is a gift from God for the married couple.

In the case of IUDs, they believe the old myth that the IUD causes abortions, that it lowers the chance that a fertilized egg will implant. The reality is that it doesn't at all, at least for modern, non-copper clad IUDs. Once upon a time, the old copper ones did have a very small impact on the chance a fertilized egg could implant, and even modern ones that have far less copper cladding on a wire around it, can have a very very small chance of decreasing implantation. But those ones aren't really used that often. Basically, the IUD is the most effective form of birth control, but it is opposed to stereotypes and lies. Modern IUDs work to prevent fertilization in the first place, via the hormones in them and design, if an egg is fertilized, it still has the same chance of implantation... however the chance of an egg being fertilized is very low, as sperm mobility is seriously hurt, and of course the woman's body lowers egg release too.

Plan B also doesn't stop implantation, or if it does, it is near modern copper clad wire IUDs (and more recent evidence shows it is likely even far less than that). It prevents the women's body from releasing an egg... if an egg is released already, it won't do any good. However, once again, facts don't matter to those on the right, and they promote it as a morning after abortion pill.

Of course, a healthy young woman, who's optimally fertile, only 30-40% of her fertilized eggs will implant, meaning that God Himself aborts about 60-70% of babies (since they define it as a full baby and human life at conception) in optimally fertile women. Now.. you have to add to that, natural miscarriages for other reasons... and the odds of having a baby really are against you naturally. (There are links to medical journals here: http://ask.metafilter.com/203529/What-of-fertilized-human-eggs-die and in this Healthcare Triage video about IUDs: https://videosift.com/video/IUDs-Are-Pretty-Great-So-Why-Arent-They-More-Popular)

I happen to have a close friend who teaches neuroanatomy at medical school.

She says she'd fail any student who understood as little about the human brain.

First, memory is not perfect. That is a myth. No amount of prodding will get a patient to remember the entire text of a novel verbatim unless they'd already spent a huge amount of time purposely memorizing the text. The human brain is all about shortcuts and workarounds so we remember important content without having to store massive amounts of data. There is no such thing as photographic memory.

Secondly, you can't just stick a probe in someone's head to extract information. You could trigger memories randomly, but you'd never know what memory you'd get from one time to the next.

He shows a fundamental lack of understanding on how the brain works.

Just looking at his Wikipedia article because I was curious. It says he nearly flunked out of medical school but suddenly turned things around when he stopped attending lectures (he claimed to be self studying). Sounds a lot like a pattern of cheating on tests if you ask me. Certainly he has no idea what he's talking about now, so he either forgot everything he learned for the tests or he never really learned it.

I always thought this was an urban myth.

Agree with lots of it. Taste is definitely to a large part habitual, you definitely dull your sense of taste if you eat lots of sugary / salty foods.

However choosing potatoes is a terrible idea for a diet. Like sugar, starches rapidly turn to glucose, release insulin and promote addiction. They admittedly have high satiety and may be less calorie dense than what he was eating before (which is what caused the weight loss) but I would not suggest swapping one addiction for another.

Also I love refuting the instinctual assumption that you can lose weight eating badly by simply offsetting it with exercise. He's correct to stress diet over exercise. Exercise does make you lose weight (and has other health benefits) but the effect of high calorie food utterly dwarfs exercise:

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/29/12051520/exercise-weight-loss-myth-burn-calories-video

Also, it's more of a subjective thing, but lean meat proteins (eggs, chicken, fish) are very filling and can make it easier to avoid the high GI carbs that absorb into your body too fast to be used effectively and end up as excess body fat. I'd argue you're making your diet considerably more difficult if you try to give up meat at the same time as losing weight.

Why is everyone talking about "out of your league?" There is no such thing as leagues. It is all about how you present yourself and how good of a job you do in making her feel good and secure.

The ugliest dude in the world can get the most attractive woman in the world if he emanates confidence and capability. Leagues are a myth--an excuse insecure men use to explain their inability to achieve things that they want in life.

I put that in quotations because he LITERALLY isn't a PhD dietitian, so he has NO credibility to dish out diet advice or write books on the topic anymore than the Lawyer who wrote The Obesity Myth. That is a fact. Deal with it. If you are going to put that in your title to gain credibility, be prepared to have it questioned.

I also simply mentioned Sucralose, which the only study against it was a single case study he used. Also, almost none of the studies proving that Sucralose is ok were industry funded, many of the ones showing it was bad was funded by the Naturalistic Industry. Funny how that works.

I rarely eat processed foods, and eat nothing that has whey or milk powder in it. That also doesn't explain why potatoes and Carrots cause my digestional upset as well, but thanks for trying. I am pretty sure you are even LESS qualified than the General Practitioner Greger in this.

And since the WHO wasn't talking about fish or poultry, they were not talking about Chicken Nuggets and Sliced Turkey. Sorry. Stop bending the facts to try to fit your narrative. Processed nuggets are not healthy for you, but they are NOT mentioned in this study.

Thanks again for playing, but like last time, you lost. Take the L babe

I think @transmorpher is either being a little deceitful or has completely confused himself, so I'd just like to make a few points clear:

Dr. Neal Barnard is the person who said "plant based diets (quitting meat) is the equivalent of quitting smoking."

I can find no evidence of the WHO referring to Dr. Barnard's study or any other work. They certainly would not condone that statement because it is bullshit science as previously stated.

Dr. Barnard appears on the website Quackwatch which aims to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct." Quackwatch is well respected, except amongst quacks.

To summarise, this means that he is quoting a study written by a known quack, and using the WHO statement on carcinogenic effect to support it. There is no scientific basis for using the WHO statement as confirmation of Dr. Barnard's quote about quitting smoking (see previous comment). It is Dr. Barnard who refers to the WHO, not vice versa.

It also means that there is only one person and study saying that it is more healthy to quit meat than smoking, as far as i can tell. Perhaps other studies say the same thing with different wording and I can't find it - but the onus is not on me to find the evidence, it is upon you to supply it.

One could argue, for example, that we already all drive electric cars because they all need a battery to start, if one was in a hot tub with Elon.

Fortunately, as far as creation myths go, we know from South Park that the Mormons got it right. And South Park is definitely more important than electric cars and space travel.

People admire you, Elon, dont use the opportunity to f*ck up their minds too much with sci-fi hot tub thought experiments! Be responsible!

When they say in the news on TV that the sun will be shining today, they dont go on to tell people what its going to do in the future or what the alternatives are.

Well that pretty much makes the global warming myth just that a myth.

Where did I say any of those things?

Where did I say Mosul is representative of Islam as a whole? I didn't. I said Dubai is not representative of Islam as a whole and offered Mosul as a contrast. Did you not watch the video?

Where did I say Christian fundamentalism isn't a problem today? I didn't. I said Christianity used to have more power and I am correct.

Where did I say Christians don't have political power or that the power they do have doesn't cause problems? I didn't. I said Christianity used to have more power. Ancient myths applied dogmatically nearly always cause problems.

You can't show where I said anything like your accusations . Learn to read. You seem to be splitting. Not everything is black or white. Not much of anything is black or white. Mostly there is grey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_%28psychology%29

Interesting, just yesterday I watched this clip on Youtube as it's one of my favorite movies. And I posted this comment there:

I have heard several times that the large send-off meal hampered some of the soldiers by making their sea-sickness worse. But how accurate is that, as they had the big meal on the previous day. Then the invasion was delayed by a day due to bad weather and the cooks had to scrounge what they could to provide another day of meals for all those men. So this "last meal" making things worse for those in the landing craft seems to be a myth.

There are millions of people all over the world who do this very thing all the time. It's a myth perpetuated by TV shows like "the biggest loser".

What's the purpose of the video? Generating ad revenue for Vox. They're a business after all. But secondary to that, I think the purpose of the video is simply to educate people about the importance of nutrition in weight loss. You would be amazed at the number of people who don't understand it.

I don't think you could really call it clickbait (other than the fact that everything is clickbait, so the term becomes meaningless). In fact, it's almost the opposite of clickbait... the main point is given away in the title. It's not like it was called "you won't believe this one amazing weight loss method" or some shit.