It's important to know this is apparently not peer reviewed science (co-authors reviewing each other's claims is not real peer review), and is not verified by experimental data...not a single clinical trial, only epidemiology. This kind of science has been shown to be accurate, when tested in rigorous clinical trials, only 0-20% of the time.
Close examination finds it lacking in many areas.

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2019/01/the-eat-lancet-diet-is-nutritionally-deficient/

https://www.nutritioncoalition.us/news/eatlancet-report-one-sided

It's important to know this is apparently not peer reviewed science (co-authors reviewing each other's claims is not real peer review), and is not verified by experimental data...not a single clinical trial, only epidemiology. This kind of science has been shown to be accurate, when tested in rigorous clinical trials, only 0-20% of the time.
Close examination finds it lacking in many areas.

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2019/01/the-eat-lancet-diet-is-nutritionally-deficient/

https://www.nutritioncoalition.us/news/eatlancet-report-one-sided

I've heard reports from several men who had sex before and after and said there was zero difference in sensation.

I circumcised my boys but not at all because of aesthetics, nor to "look like me", and especially not for any kind of religious reason.

We weren't dead-set against leaving them un-cut. In fact, we initially figured we'd just let them be natural.

One reason we decided to go ahead with it is we heard about lots of uncircumcised men have issues that require them to have it done later in life (e.g., phimosis, etc.), but the bigger reason was recent (at that time) studies showed strong evidence that circumcised men are at substantially lower risk for serious life-threatening diseases such as HIV and penile cancer (that results from HPV).

>> Yep, it's fucking barbaric. It is genital mutilation of children, period.

Talk about misinformation from a bunch of barbarians.

It's more barbaric to be completely close-minded, backward-thinking, and ignorant as to why there might possibly exist valid reasons to provide your children an almost 100% chance to avoid a plethora of penis-related problems and life-threatening diseases for their entire life in exchange for what's really a very minor procedure when done soon after birth.

The reasons against it? "It's fucking barbaric." Because... why again? "It just is," I'm sure is the best possible response.

The reasons in favor of it? Don't be so glib. Read the research.

Science Daily from Jan 2010:

Other epidemiological studies have shown that male circumcision is associated with significant reductions in HIV acquisition in men.

The strongest evidence for a cause-and-effect relationship between circumcision and HIV risk reduction came from three randomized-control trials in sub-Saharan Africa, where the circumcision rate is relatively low and the HIV infection rate is relatively high. All three demonstrated a more than 40 percent reduction in HIV acquisition among circumcised men.

The largest of these three studies -- in Rakai, Uganda -- was led by Dr. Ronald H. Gray, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins and the scientific paper's senior author. Dr. Gray's group collected penile swabs from all of the circumcision trial study participants, which provided the data for the new TGen-Johns Hopkins study.

The new study found that circumcision -- the removal of the foreskin, or prepuce, from the penis -- eliminates an area of mucous membrane and dramatically changes the penile bacterial ecosystem. Significantly, TGen's analysis of more than 40 types of bacteria, using a 16S rRNA gene-based pyrosequencing approach, suggests that the introduction of more oxygen following circumcision decreases the presence of anaerobic (non-oxygen) bacteria and increases the amount of aerobic (oxygen-required) bacteria.

HPV can also cause cancer of the penis in men. HPV infection is found in about half of all penile cancers. It’s more common in men with HIV and those who have sex with other men.

There is no approved screening test to find early signs of penile cancer. Because almost all penile cancers start under the foreskin of the penis, they may be noticed early in the course of the disease.

...

The 2 main risk factors for genital HPV infection in men are having many sex partners and not being circumcised.

The risk of being infected with HPV is strongly linked to having many sex partners.

Men who are circumcised (have had the foreskin of the penis removed) have a lower chance of getting and staying infected with HPV. Men who have not been circumcised are more likely to be infected with HPV and pass it on to their partners.

It's lucky that Fritz Lickint and Richard Doll didn't know this. In fact, as stated, Green seems to be denying that epidemiology can ever be of any use!

Now if he had said correlation does not necessarily imply causation, or that it doesn't prove causation, I'd agree 100%... finding a correlation isn't the end of a study but it could be the starting point for one, and often has been.

Oh, and to save anyone else looking this up, the speech bubble given to Tereshkova "первый!" does indeed mean "first!" (at least according to google translate, but it doesn't seem to know gender).

So...when is your research going to come out in a peer reviewed journal? Because the CDC's would have.

Perusing bits of articles online is not exactly what I was referring to, nor was it what the NRA spent so much money getting suppressed. Now, if you have a degree in statistical analysis or epidemiology, I'll apologize, but otherwise, you're an armchair quarterback making pronouncements with nothing to back them up.

Bmacs You are moving the goalposts.
You say above that your key gripe is in using BMI to approximate health. Not the likelihood of ones imminent demise.
Lets clear this up.
1. You are making a conversation about morbidity about mortality.
2. You are dealing with data specific to BMI as it relates to Blood pressure and mortality as it specifically relates to hypertensive individuals. Is your suggestion that High blood pressure and cardiac events are the only risks involved with obesity? What about things that don't kill you but directly impact the quality of your life? Thinking diabeties here, among other things.
3. You seem to be trying to somehow debunk the concept that obesity has ANY negative health consequences by dismissing the other articles cited.
4. What biomarkers are you concerned with. What study are you focused on? There are plenty of studies surrounding biomarkers for obesity and comorbitidy. Here is a nature article directly citing that.

What are you actually suggesting here? Obesity is causal to NO life threatening or impacting diseases? That it has NO negative health consequences?
>> ^bmacs27:

@scannex Okay, none of your articles whatsoever considered any other biomarkers that may be correlated with obesity, let alone other factors like socioeconomic status, other behavioral choices, etc. For example: In this plot from this article of the oxford journal of epidemiology shows that the relationship between BMI and mortality breaks down for women with a systolic blood pressure below about 150mmHg excluding morbidly obese women(those with a BMI between 40 and 75). It also shows a "protective effect," in terms of mortality risk, of obesity in men with high blood pressure.
The article cites at least 9 articles and I quote, "The associations between body weight, raised blood pressure, and mortality remain controversial." Thus, you're wrong, this is very much a "jury is still out" sort of a question.

@scannex Okay, none of your articles whatsoever considered any other biomarkers that may be correlated with obesity, let alone other factors like socioeconomic status, other behavioral choices, etc. For example: In this plot from this article of the oxford journal of epidemiology shows that the relationship between BMI and mortality breaks down for women with a systolic blood pressure below about 150mmHg excluding morbidly obese women(those with a BMI between 40 and 75). It also shows a "protective effect," in terms of mortality risk, of obesity in men with high blood pressure.

The article cites at least 9 articles and I quote, "The associations between body weight, raised blood pressure, and mortality remain controversial." Thus, you're wrong, this is very much a "jury is still out" sort of a question.

As an aside, most of the food you consume is radioactive in some way, cool huh?! Hell, most of everything you interactive with has some level of radioactive decay. There is rising evidence of the benefits of small doses of radiation. The current Linear no-threshold model in many interesting cases has failed to show direct epidemiological evidence of increased cancer rates where background radiation levels are higher than other levels. It is all very interesting stuff, a far cry from the fear factor news media make radiation out to me. Turns out, the whole world is radioactive, and it might be the energy which fuels plate tectonics . Just an interesting aside from the whole radioactive carbon element of this

Truth stranger than fiction.

Gay people are not asking to push their way of thinking on the American culture. They just want equal rights and freedom from oppression, just like everyone else does. Besides, they are a part of American culture (and part of all other cultures, too).

They most certainly are pushing their way of thinking on America, and that in every aspect of life. In California young children must now learn about gay history:

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/22/138504488/california-brings-gay-history-into-the-classroom

The normalization of homosexuality is also leading to the normalization of transgenders. There is now a law in California which states that transgenders have a protected right of gender expression which means they have to be allowed to cross dress at work:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/10/california-transgender-laws_n_1004109.html

Which leads to this:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=348033

Before you say it has nothing to do with gay rights, these were the sponsors:

The bill was authored by Assemblymember Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) and sponsored by Equality California, Transgender Law Center and Gay-Straight Alliance Network.

Here is the bill California vetoed but it shows the agenda:

Brown vetoed the Survey Data Inclusion Act, which required the state to include questions about LGBT identities, including sexual orientation and domestic partnership status among others, on state surveys.

The truth is, gays are pushing their lifestyle on this culture, and trying to gain a protected minority status. They won't stop until they are fully integrated into every aspect of our culture, including indoctrinating our children.

Your slippery-slope argument about homosexuality leading to "other kinds of deviant sexuality" is entirely unfounded and logically fallacious. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean things like fetishes and BDSM, then that's patently false, as plenty of kinky sex goes on in heterosexual relationships too, and if it were true, it would mean that all or most gays and lesbians would be into whips and chains, which they aren't. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean "child abuse", then you are conflating homosexuality with paedophilia, and you need to stop doing that now, because you know there is no causal relationship there.

I just demonstrated the causal relationship by my example. There are also many studies which state there is a connection:

From the Archives of Sexual Behavior:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archives_of_Sexual_Behavior

A study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 'eighty-six percent of [sexual] offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.'

The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2.4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles

"Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of these is homosexuality ... Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%."

A study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that '... the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men ... the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality

You claim you care about homosexuals. Well, I don't see it. Condemnation masquerading as love isn't caring, it's just the usual passive-aggressive Christian bullshit. Someone who cares about homosexuals would want to allow them to marry, to adopt children, and to live their lives without being bullied and persecuted.

To advocate for that would be to encourage homosexuals to continue breaking Gods law and end up in hell. I don't want homosexuals to go to hell, therefore I will continue to tell them it is immoral and that they need to repent.

Christians do not have a monopoly on morality; in fact, the Christian adherence to the bronze-age concept of sin and their preoccupation with what other people do in bed is positively immoral.

God decides what is moral, and it is the preoccuption of Christians to obey God and warn those who are perishing.

Who cares if something is against the "law" of some god or other? I don't believe in your god, and it probably doesn't even exist, so why should I care what people say it likes and dislikes? And why should religious people get special dispensation for their acts of hatred and bullying because you claim it is mandated by a magic invisible man who lives in the sky?

Regardless of whether you believe in God or not, you are still accountable to Him. And even if I wasn't Christian, I still have a right to say homosexuality is immoral. That is my right and is guaranteed by the constitution, just as it is your right to say what you like about my religion. You would like to have it one way and stifle my right to free speech, which is ironic considering the position you're taking about equal rights.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Gay people are not asking to push their way of thinking on the American culture. They just want equal rights and freedom from oppression, just like everyone else does. Besides, they are a part of American culture (and part of all other cultures, too).
Your slippery-slope argument about homosexuality leading to "other kinds of deviant sexuality" is entirely unfounded and logically fallacious. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean things like fetishes and BDSM, then that's patently false, as plenty of kinky sex goes on in heterosexual relationships too, and if it were true, it would mean that all or most gays and lesbians would be into whips and chains, which they aren't. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean "child abuse", then you are conflating homosexuality with paedophilia, and you need to stop doing that now, because you know there is no causal relationship there.
You claim you care about homosexuals. Well, I don't see it. Condemnation masquerading as love isn't caring, it's just the usual passive-aggressive Christian bullshit. Someone who cares about homosexuals would want to allow them to marry, to adopt children, and to live their lives without being bullied and persecuted. Christians do not have a monopoly on morality; in fact, the Christian adherence to the bronze-age concept of sin and their preoccupation with what other people do in bed is positively immoral. Who cares if something is against the "law" of some god or other? I don't believe in your god, and it probably doesn't even exist, so why should I care what people say it likes and dislikes? And why should religious people get special dispensation for their acts of hatred and bullying because you claim it is mandated by a magic invisible man who lives in the sky?
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm not saying that homosexuals are the same as paedophiles. I am saying that the normalization of homosexuality into a culture is a logical pathway to the normalization of pederasty in a culture, which we have a historical example of in the greeks. I am also saying that it is deviant sexual behavior which opens the door to other kinds of deviant sexual behavior, and that in itself is eroding the moral fabric of this country.
It is exactly because I care about homosexuals that I will openly say it is immoral, and against Gods law. It would in fact be a sin if I didn't say it. Any law which restricts my, or anyone elses ability to say it is unconstitutional. The absurdity is inherent in the ultra politically correct environments this kind of thing always leads to, as marbles posted about.
There is nothing hateful in stating the truth. If homosexuals have the right to trumpet their way of thinking and push it on the American culture, I have the equal right to say it is wrong and something that should be avoided at all costs. It's always interesting that a moral relativist always allows for every kind of moral position except for the kind that takes an absolute position.
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
How hypocritical of @shinyblurry to accuse someone else of having a "heart filled with poison". The ridiculous, hateful and archaic dogma of sin and judgement that you subscribe to is an immoral poison to the modern world, giving rise to absurd and damaging situations like the religious exception to this law.
Equating homosexuals with paedophiles is a cowardly trick of misdirection and a false analogy. They are not the same, and you know it - a consenting homosexual couple harms no-one at all, whereas a paedophile who molests a child causing emotional damage that ripples out into the child's later life and relationships. Your argument is empty.

Nevermind the fact that Washington University, the school that created the Foldit program, is a public (that is to say, funded by the state; a.k.a. statist) institution.

Nevermind the fact that healthcare, up until very recently, has been privatized (excluding medicare and medicaid) for a substantial time now; yet the lifetime cost of HIV medications and treatment is roughly $385,000.

Shouldn't free market generic meds have landed in your local Wally World for $5 a month by now? Why is the free market dictating these insane prices where how much you can pay is directly relational to how long you get to live.

Maybe if these drugs were mass produced... but herein lies a new problem: New HIV infections have been reduced by 17% over the past eight years! Urgh that's what you get with big government. Free market thinkers know the bigger your customer base is, the better it is for business, and the consumer therefore is the ultimate winner.

Now, as we know, if the market was not worthy, pharmaceutical businessmen would not get involved with it and essentially let the project die. The logical solution to these huge dilemmas in cost then is to create a larger customer base. All they need now is a furtive way to deliver the virus to a sect of the population that is either expendable and large or rich and small.

What's that little Timmy? Blankfist's bullshit posts give you AIDS of the eyes when you read them? Well it's a start. FREEDOM!

>> ^Jinx:

I've had Salmonella. Its not really very nice. I like my food bombared with ionising radiation thanks.
I expect those laws exist for good reason. If these nitwits want to risk their health for "raw" food, and as long as the risks are clearly advertised then I don't really know why they shouldn't let them.


The debate is a bit more complex than just 'which has the most germs in it'. A great deal of the regular milk sold in stores is not simply milk, it usually has additives and other ingredients in it such as permeate. It is able to be sold as milk because that's how the labeling laws work in many parts of the world. Also, people may want to buy raw milk because they know the supplier is local, and they want to support local, more sustainable, business. Buying regular milk from a store means your likely supporting a large company that has little care for the environment or the cows.

In essence, people want to have a choice as to what they put in their body, it's about autonomy, and not always just about nutrition. I agree that the risks are higher, however I personally don't believe that these raids are about that at all.

Also, while there seems to be epidemiological evidence that raw milk has a higher chance of causing sickness than pasteurized milk, from what I've read most of these outbreaks occur when people are trying raw milk for the first time, or if they are eating products made with raw milk that haven't been handled properly. People that are raised on a farm drinking raw milk don't tend to get sick from it, due to the fact they build up resistance to any bacteria that may be present in the milk.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

"These results suggest that the incidence of these cancers may be decreased by reducing the prevalence of smoking, gastroesophageal reflux, and being overweight and by increasing the consumption of fruits and vegetables."
"...no study has comprehensively examined their contributions to the cancer burden in the general population."
And I'm sure the fact that it's what his father died of is just pure coincidence?
Lucky for me though. Even though I smoke, I also eat pizza:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12949808
...so the two should cancel each other out right?


No. Reflux is a major risk factor for adenocarcinoma, a different disease than what Hitchens has. Smoking and drinking account for the vast majority of squamous cell carcinoma.

Genetics is important in certain kinds of cancer, like breast or colon, but it plays a much smaller role in this particular disease than smoking or drinking. Considering that Hitchens does not have any of the other risk factors, such as notable esophageal disoders, smoking and drinking are almost certainly what caused his cancer.

And yes it is impossible to ethically conduct clinical trials to definitively prove the causation between smoking and drinking and cancer. However, the science and world wide epidemiological data supporting this causation is overwhelming. Hitchens, a man of reason, has taken responsibility for his disease, but you still seem to be in denial. In any case, there's no need to bring the straw man into this discussion, as we are talking about a completely different level of evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarfism#Causes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achondroplasia#Epidemiology

She seems very bright, singing in Portuguese for us... I mean, I'm 27, and I don't know Portuguese!

I did find an interesting study conducted by the CDC regarding fluoride:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11-c6.pdf

In Conclusion they state:

"Recent data are available on the concentration of fluoride in different foods in Canada and the
daily dietary intakes for different Canadian age groups (Dabeka and McKenzie 1995). However, recent
analogous information is not available for the United States. Up-to-date data on concentrations of
fluoride in food items and the dietary intake of fluorides in the United States is important in view of the
changes in fluoride emissions and the effect that the use of fluoridated water or water with a high natural
fluoride content may have on the fluoride levels in processed food and beverages (Pang et al. 1992).

The total human intake is of interest, since multiple sources, all of which are generally considered safe by
themselves, could, under some circumstances, provide total intake that is considered to be above the
"safe" level.

No exposure registries for fluorides were located. This compound is not
currently one of the compounds for which a subregistry has been established in the National Exposure
Registry. The compound will be considered in the future when chemical selection is made for
subregistries to be established. The information that is amassed in the National Exposure Registry
facilitates the epidemiological research needed to assess adverse health outcomes that may be related to
the exposure to this compound."

I did find an interesting study conducted by the CDC regarding fluoride:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11-c6.pdf

In Conclusion they state:

"Recent data are available on the concentration of fluoride in different foods in Canada and the
daily dietary intakes for different Canadian age groups (Dabeka and McKenzie 1995). However, recent
analogous information is not available for the United States. Up-to-date data on concentrations of
fluoride in food items and the dietary intake of fluorides in the United States is important in view of the
changes in fluoride emissions and the effect that the use of fluoridated water or water with a high natural
fluoride content may have on the fluoride levels in processed food and beverages (Pang et al. 1992).

The total human intake is of interest, since multiple sources, all of which are generally considered safe by
themselves, could, under some circumstances, provide total intake that is considered to be above the
"safe" level.

No exposure registries for fluorides were located. This compound is not
currently one of the compounds for which a subregistry has been established in the National Exposure
Registry. The compound will be considered in the future when chemical selection is made for
subregistries to be established. The information that is amassed in the National Exposure Registry
facilitates the epidemiological research needed to assess adverse health outcomes that may be related to
the exposure to this compound."