Vegan diet made Essex woman delusional, says coroner - "A university student took her own life while suffering delusional beliefs caused by her strict vegan diet, an inquest has concluded. Georgina Owen had developed a vitamin B12 deficiency due to the diet she began in 2016 "stemming from her environmental concerns", the coroner said... an expert report concluded Owen was also showing vague signs of cognitive impairment, anxiety, fatigue and difficulty with simple decision making."
Harvard doctor says animal products are essential for mental health - in blow to veganism: 'The brain needs meat' - "Meat is essential for warding off depression and anxiety, a top nutrition expert has revealed, sending a blow to veganism. Dr Georgia Ede, a Harvard-trained nutritional and metabolic psychiatrist and author of Change Your Diet, Change Your Mind, studies the relationship between what we eat and our mental and physical health. And despite the health halo that vegan diets have been given over the last few years, she claims that giving up meat could be detrimental for mental health... Dr Ede said that while getting enough protein has long been a concern surrounding vegan diets, eating meat is about more than protein. 'It's actually less about protein and more about all of the other nutrients that are inside meat,' she said. 'You can get your protein needs met through a vegan and vegetarian diet if you plan it carefully.'... While animal products like eggs, meat, cheese, and Greek yogurt are high in protein, it can also be found in vegan options like lentils and broccoli. 'But many of the other essential nutrients are much more difficult if not in some cases impossible to obtain from plants,' Dr Ede said. She noted that meat is 'the only food that contains every nutrient we need in its proper form and is also the safest food for our blood sugar and insulin levels.' These nutrients include vitamin B12, omega-3 fatty acids, zinc, choline, iron, and iodine. Vitamin B12, for example, helps with the formation of oxygen-rich red blood cells and DNA. However, it has also been linked to regulating mood-boosting serotonin, and low levels of serotonin have been linked to increased risks of depression and anxiety. Additionally, a review in the journal Frontiers in Pharmacology found that lower levels of zinc were associated with depression, as zinc can reduce inflammation in the brain. Several studies have suggested that meat eaters have better mental health. A 2021 systematic review of 18 studies compared those who do and don't eat meat. The research included 160,257 participants ages 11 to 96 (53 percent of whom were female), including 149,559 meat eaters and 8,584 meat avoiders. Of those, 11 studies found that meat-free diets were linked to worse mental health outcomes. One of those studies found that vegetarians had a 35.2 percent chance of developing major depression, compared to 19.1 percent for meat eaters. Additionally, vegetarians had a 31.5 percent chance of developing an anxiety disorder, compared to 18.4 percent for meat eaters. One study published in 2022 surveyed 14,000 Brazilians between 35 and 74 years old and found those who followed a vegan diet were twice as likely to be depressed — even if they had similar nutrient intakes to carnivores. And a meta-analysis published in 2020 and including 160,000 meat-eaters and 8,500 meat-abstainers also found those who cut meat from their diet were significantly more likely to be depressed. Despite gaining a health halo over the years, emerging research suggests that vegan diets could have other lasting health consequences. A 2023 report from the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), for example, looked at more than 500 studies and concluded that animal sources of food offer 'crucial sources of much-needed nutrients.' The agency noted that these macro and micro nutrients are hard to find 'in the required quality and quantity' if following a vegan diet. Additionally, meat, eggs, and milk are 'particularly vital' for children, young people, and the elderly, as well as pregnant and breastfeeding women. A 2019 paper also noted that a deficiency of vitamin B12, which is more common in vegans, could raise the risk of stroke. This was because its absence inhibits the clearance of proteins from the blood stream, leading to inflammation — which in turn raised the probability of blood vessels being damaged. This is a key risk factor for stroke."
New data shows plant-based mince is now 33% cheaper than beef - "Plant-based food prices have widely been considered high, leading to the concept of the ‘vegan tax’, by which vegan products often appear subject to ‘price hikes’ compared to their non-vegan counterparts. But now, that seems set to change as recent data has shown that plant-based meat prices have dropped below animal meat prices, and the gap is widening. Recent fluctuations in global supply chains have put immense pressure on traditional livestock farming, leading to a noticeable spike in the cost of beef, lamb, and pork. Amidst this volatility, new research from the Good Food Institute (GFI) Europe has found that plant-based mince and meatballs at Tesco are now, on average, 33 per cent less expensive than their conventional counterparts... While mince and meatballs are leading the charge for affordability, the GFI report noted that the trend hasn’t reached every corner of the supermarket just yet. Beef burgers, for instance, remain 9 per cent cheaper than plant-based patties. However, with chicken prices expected to climb further due to the rising costs of fertiliser and energy for heating sheds the overall outlook for meat-free affordability remains strong."
Red meat is not a health risk. New study slams shoddy research - "In a new, unprecedented effort, scientists at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) scrutinized decades of research on red meat consumption and its links to various health outcomes, formulating a new rating system to communicate health risks in the process. Their findings mostly dispel any concerns about eating red meat. “We found weak evidence of association between unprocessed red meat consumption and colorectal cancer, breast cancer, type 2 diabetes and ischemic heart disease. Moreover, we found no evidence of an association between unprocessed red meat and ischemic stroke or hemorrhagic stroke,” they summarized. The IHME scientists had been observing the shoddy nature of health science for decades. Each year, hundreds of frankly lazy studies are published that simply attempt to find an observational link between some action — eating a food for example — and a health outcome, like death or disease. In the end, owing to sloppy methods, varying subject populations, and inconsistent statistical measures, everything, especially different foods, seems to be both associated and not associated with cancer. How is the lay public supposed to interpret this mess?... “The evidence for a direct vascular or heath risk from eating meat regularly is very low, to the point that there is probably no risk,” commented Dr. Steven Novella, a Yale neurologist and president of the New England Skeptical Society. “There is, however, more evidence for a health risk from eating too few vegetables. That is really the risk of a high-meat diet, those meat calories are displacing vegetable calories.”"
How do Britons feel about nuclear energy?
Tom Chivers on X - "This seems really bad and I don't know what to do about it: not so much the differences in political attitudes, that's fine, but there's a strong gender divide in belief on straightforward factual questions like "is nuclear energy low-carbon?""
Swedish government plans to take majority stake in nuclear power development firm Videberg Kraft - "The Swedish government said on Friday it plans to take a 60% stake in nuclear development company Videberg Kraft as it looks to kick start the construction of a new generation of reactors to replace its aging atomic power plants. The government has said nuclear power is vital to meet an expected surge in demand for electricity as industry and the transport sector shift away from fossil fuels... "Sweden is a nuclear nation. We are now taking the next step to clarify the state's role and responsibility in the further development of nuclear power," Deputy Prime Minister Ebba Busch said in a statement... The government has said it wants Sweden to build the equivalent of around 10 new, full-size reactors by 2045 to complement the six currently in operation."
This climate change hystericist claimed that Sweden was shutting down its nuclear plants and switching to renewables
Meme - Project Liberal: Crying Soyjak Germany: "Stop using nuclear it's dangerous and bad for the environment 349g CO2/kWh"
Normal person France: "No. 52g CO2/kWh"
Mew @GermanAgnos: "I don't take opinions from surrender countries"
Mr_Liberal @MrLiberalCa: "Didn't you guys surrender twice?"
‘Fish disco’ not enough to protect nature at nuclear plant, says green quango - "The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station is facing fresh delays as a green quango demands extra nature protections on top of a controversial “fish disco”. Natural England has told developer EDF that existing plans to stop aquatic life in the Severn Estuary from being sucked into the Somerset plant’s cooling pipes will not be enough to satisfy environmental rules. The company had proposed using £700m of special equipment to ward off fish, including a bespoke underwater loudspeaker system which campaigners have called the “fish disco”. EDF provided new research data to regulators in February following promising trials of the technology, formally known as the acoustic fish deterrent, by university scientists. But in recent weeks, Natural England is understood to have claimed that further protections are necessary, such as the creation of new salt marshes to boost fish populations in the area. The quango is refusing to sign off the plant until new plans are set out and approved. It has prompted concern that Hinkley’s targeted 2030 opening date is now effectively impossible to deliver, owing to the time it will take to win approval for and build the new salt marshes. Sam Richards, the chief executive of Britain Remade, a Right-leaning think tank, said: “Hinkley Point C is already the most expensive nuclear power station ever built. “It also has more fish protection measures than any reactor built anywhere in the world. “For Natural England to now demand even more mitigation – regardless of the wider impact on the project and for minimal added benefit to nature – shows just how out of touch with reality they really are. “This out of control quango has become a direct threat to Britain’s energy security.” From the start of consultation to the end of construction, other artificially created salt marshes in the UK have taken as much as eight years to complete. If the same timescales were replicated at Hinkley, the plant would not open until 2034 at the earliest – almost a decade later than originally planned. There is also strong opposition among locals to the salt marshes proposal, including from farmers whose land would have to be compulsorily purchased, meaning any new scheme is likely to become ensnared by fresh legal challenges. Natural England’s ultimatum will be seen as a direct challenge to reforms confirmed by ministers just weeks ago, aimed at speeding up the construction of nuclear power stations."
Proof that nuclear power is too expensive and that's why we should stop using it!
Post by @did:plc:62gdkmpwa7xme36getyqnem3 — Bluesky - "When Einstein developed general relativity the closest thing to a practical application that could even be imagined at the time was a slightly more precise description of where to look for the planet Mercury in the sky, and yet now we’d all be literally lost without it. Anyway: fund basic research."
Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb: A Disastrous Legacy | National Review - "“I was a college student when I read Mr. Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb,” wrote Wall Street Journal reader Kenneth Emde of “population scientist” Paul Ehrlich’s most famous work in a 2023 letter. “I took it to heart and now have no grandchildren, but 50 years later, the population has increased to eight billion without dire consequences. I was gullible and stupid.” It’s cold comfort, but Emde was hardly alone in deferring to Ehrlich’s supposed expertise. The longtime professor of biology at Stanford University and advocate of an apocalyptic theory of human overpopulation, who passed away on Friday at the age of 93, was said by the New York Times to have been merely “premature” in his predictions. Maybe someday, Ehrlich’s catastrophism will seem prescient. Today, however, it would be more accurate to say that Ehrlich was just wrong. Central to Ehrlich’s thesis in The Population Bomb was his contention that the Earth had a finite “carrying capacity,” and its limits were already being tested by the mid-20th century. Humanity would soon have to ration its resources and consign those for whom it could no longer care to triage. Ehrlich’s modern Malthusianism fired the imaginations of the international environmental left, but he seemed compelled to forever up the ante on his dire predictions. He subsequently anticipated that, by 1980, the average American lifespan would decline to just 42. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” Ehrlich wrote in 1969. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years,” he declared the following year. By 1971, Ehrlich was willing to “take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Roughly 100 to 200 million people, he assumed, would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989 in what he deemed “the Great Die-Off.” Sure, he got some of the “details and timing” of the events he predicted wrong, his allies will concede. But, to them, the eschatological gist of his work still rang true. “Population growth, along with over-consumption per capita, is driving civilization over the edge,” Ehrlich told The Guardian as recently as 2018, “billions of people are now hungry or micronutrient malnourished, and climate disruption is killing people.” With the confidence of a Marxian economist, Ehrlich never questioned his faith in where humanity’s addiction to prosperity was taking it. “As I’ve said many times, ‘perpetual growth is the creed of the cancer cell,’” he said. Ehrlich’s work left much misery in its wake. As even Ehrlich’s supporters will admit, his theories “lent support to racist attitudes to population control.” Population bombers encouraged the promotion of abortion in places like Sub-Saharan Africa and the Indian subcontinent. Overpopulation as a theory justified some of the worst eugenicist abuses of the human species since World War II — abuses in which the United States was very much a participant. “The large number of sterilizations began in earnest in 1966, when Medicaid came into existence and funded the operation for low-income people,” the author Angela Franks wrote. Indeed, by 1977, “up to one-quarter” of Native American women had undergone sterilization, she wrote. A program of “voluntary” sterilization of Puerto Rican women in the 1960s unfolded similarly. By 1965, about one-third of Puerto Rican women surveyed admitted to undergoing a sterilization procedure amid the efforts of the U.S. government and the International Planned Parenthood Federation to promote the practice. Ehrlich’s primary contention — that the human race is, more or less, doomed — continues to inform the work of today’s Malthusians. The various United Nations appendages that routinely warn us of our species’ imminent collapse a decade or so on from whenever the last report was published lean on Ehrlich’s theories. The professor’s legacy inspired a 2018 initiative by a collection of bioethicists to rehabilitate The Population Bomb in the pages of the Washington Post. As recently as 2023, CBS’s 60 Minutes lent its platform to Ehrlich to promote groundless apocalypticism. “The next few decades will be the end of the kind of civilization we’re used to,” he told a credulous Scott Pelley. Ehrlich never questioned his conclusions and refused to repent for the suffering they produced. “For a species that named itself homo sapiens, the wise man, we’re being incredibly stupid,” Ehrlich told CNN at the end of the last decade. That seems to have been Ehrlich’s primary conceit — one that fatally undermined his work. Ehrlich and those who bought into the theory of overpopulation regularly underestimated mankind’s ability to engineer itself out of a challenge. Those who subscribed to that flawed outlook did what they could in their own ways to meet what they were told was the measure of a responsible citizen of the world: In CNN reporter Clint Watts’s summary, “consuming less, polluting less,” and “having fewer children.” Kenneth Emde took Ehrlich’s advocacy to heart, and he regrets it. Emde was asked to make what he thought was a noble sacrifice to future generations, but he only deprived himself of one of life’s foremost joys. Millions more similarly immiserated themselves for what they were told was the greater good. They deserved, if not an apology, at least the truth. But Paul Ehrlich couldn’t bring himself to provide them with either."
As Richard Dawkins observed, the retreat of Christianity has been replaced by worse things
Ehrlich is probably the best example of the core misanthropy of environmentalism
Queen guitarist Brian May blocked from planting daffodils - "Legendary rocker Brian May became a local hero in the quiet English village where he lives when he donated thousands of daffodil bulbs to brighten up the green outside the church last year. But plans to extend his floral donations for next year have bitten the dust after local authorities intervened and blocked the move."
The sad death of the sub machine gun - "The sub-machine gun was never meant to be universal. It was a solution, an elegant, ruthless solution to a specific problem. And for a time, in the hands of tank crews, resistance fighters, gangsters and elite soldiers alike, it performed that role with remarkable fidelity."
Another progressive myth about children’s education has been punctured - "For decades we have been told that streaming or setting (the grouping of children of similar ability in one class) was ineffective, damaging or even, in words that have peppered academic commentary, “symbolic violence” against less-able children. We were told that teaching in mixed-ability classes was fairer and enabled children of all abilities to shine. At long last, authoritative evidence has shown what many of us instinctively knew: streaming works... a report has been published which firmly disproves any notion that setting by ability negatively impacts children from disadvantaged backgrounds. The report – produced by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF), which evaluated groundbreaking research by the Institute of Education, the well-respected teacher training arm of University College London – was based on observations and data from 28 secondary schools that teach maths in mixed-ability classes and 69 similar secondary schools that teach maths in classes set by the prior attainment of their pupils. The research found no negative impact on the attainment of children eligible for free school meals in being taught in a class of children of similar ability compared to being taught in a mixed-ability class. Most significantly, the research found that high-attaining pupils in mixed-ability classes showed two months less progress than those in classes set by ability. And, of course, amongst those high-attaining pupils will be children from disadvantaged backgrounds... The latest EEF research found that lessons in mixed-ability classes teach at a similar level to the bottom sets in schools that group children by ability. Inevitably, therefore, high-ability children in those mixed-ability classes learn less than if they had been in a class of similarly able pupils. This is a tragic waste of talent at a time when our economy needs the brightest maths graduates to drive innovation in science and computing... children who are taught in mixed-ability classes suffer higher negative effects on their self-confidence in maths compared to those in classes set by ability. This work, which follows very strict criteria about research methods – in this case using a “naturalistic” randomised controlled trial, is exactly what the EEF was established to do. Its work has significantly improved the quality of educational research in this country. It has exposed many orthodoxies that lacked an evidence base, such as the notion of “learning styles”, a widely held belief that has no research to support it. The success of the EEF is one of Michael Gove’s greatest legacies and its research this week, if implemented in schools, will transform the life-chances of future generations."
Left wingers hate success, so they want to penalise high-attaining pupils
Margot Cleveland on X - "The fact that you who are reading this care as much as you do about prospective SCOTUS vacancies is an indictment of how far afield our Constitutional system has strayed. There was a time when the Republic did not wait with bated breath every summer to learn whether a justice would retire, or ghoulishly check the actuarial tables against the justices’ ages. That was when the Court restricted itself to the proper (if somewhat dull) task of applying the law made by others. But somewhere along the way justices (Thomas and Alito are notable exceptions) discovered that it is far more exciting to make up your own laws. You can even remake society in your own image! So the next time you check SCOTUS retirement rumors, take a moment to remember WHY you are checking — whereas finding out the identity of the next justice as contemplated by the Founders might be interesting, finding out your next tyrant-in-robes is life-changing."
reason on X - ""Our nation is not founded on a religion. It's not based on a common culture, even, or heritage. ... We're a creedal nation," Justice Neil Gorsuch tells @nickgillespie on The Reason Interview podcast."
Boris Ryvkin on X - "This is simply wrong. It’s the common religion, culture, and heritage that yielded this supposed creed and the constitutional, rule of law, free republic that followed. Specifically, the Anglo-Dutch religious, political, cultural, and economic model is the foundation on which the U.S. was built. The Founding Fathers weren’t a bunch of randos thrown together from disparate cultures who signed on to a collection of ideals. They came from basically the same place ancestrally and culturally - and influenced by overlapping intellectual currents or forces when forming the new country. That’s why what worked in America has not worked in so many other parts of the world."
The Liberian constitution is based on the American one, so clearly the country is a failure because the American creed sucks. Also see Douglass North on Hispanic countries copying US institutions
Meme - "1) "You cannot challenge what we said today" - the Science
2) "You cannot hold us accountable for what we said yesterday because the science changed" - the Science
*Back to 1)*"
The cope is that Science is done by Scientists, so laymen have no right to talk about it. But of course, this pretends that scientists who go against the establishment don't get censored and deplatformed too (a further cope is that Science can only be done in peer reviewed journals)
David Juurlink on X - "The official journal of the Canadian Paediatric Society has just acknowledged that more than 100 of its case reports are fabricated. Incredible reporting from @RetractionWatch:"
Jonathan Shedler on X - "“The ultimate lesson is that science isn’t special—at least not anymore. Maybe back when Einstein talked to Niels Bohr, and there were only a few dozen important workers in every field. But there are now three million researchers in America. It’s no longer a calling, it’s a career. Science is as corruptible a human activity as any other. Its practitioners aren’t saints, they’re human beings, and they do what human beings do—lie, cheat, steal from one another, sue, hide data, fake data, overstate their own importance, and denigrate opposing views unfairly. That’s human nature. It isn’t going to change.” —Michael Crichton, in “Next”"
If you don't Trust the Science, you're a Science Denier
Peter Boghossian on X - "Prediction: The replication crisis will unfold like #MeToo. Everyone in science knows how bad it is, but nobody wants to speak first. Then it all comes crashing down."
John Carter on X - "The thin end of the wedge was the culture of polite lies surrounding race, sex, religion, and sexuality that began to permeate academia in the postwar era. This led directly to massively increased female participation, which then reinforced the trend due to women prioritizing social harmony over verity, thereby establishing a positive feedback loop that eroded the epistemic integrity of academic culture. As academics became accustomed to averting their gaze from polite fictions, it became much easier for them to accept other deceptions. The old collegial culture of courteous but vigorous disputation was replaced with the new collegial culture of vicious enforcement of orthodoxy. This rendered academics much more ideologically pliable, which perfectly suited the goals of government bureaucrats and corporate marketing departments, who did not want truth but plausible-looking justifications for predetermined social engineering goals."
Simon Maechling on X - "The collapse of trust in science is going to go down in history as one of the most sad, bizarre, and destructive social contagions of modern times. We fed billions, cured diseases and powered nations - yet people ran toward conspiracies instead."
Roman Helmet Guy on X - "People haven’t lost trust in “science,” they’ve lost trust in a self-selected self-perpetuating academic priest class who rely on constant alarmism or revisionism to secure funding and who look upon dissent as heretical to an extent that would make the medieval church blush."
Yuri Bezmenov's Ghost on X - "Science is good The Science™ not so much"
Possum Reviews on X - "The replication crisis is not a conspiracy theory."
Joscha Bach on X - "Yes, it's mindblowing how the sciences squandered trust and status by needlessly giving up their neutrality, objectivity and truth seeking, while recklessly embracing capture by partisan ideologies. No authoritarian government forced them to do this."
nic carter on X - "shouldn't have tried to convince us that men can be women, children can change gender if you sterilize them, the vaccine is safe and effective, and covid was zoonotic in origin. 0/10 do better next time"
Armed Liberal on X - "When science explained there were 16 genders, and that assembling for grandma’s funeral was going to kill us all but thousands gathering in the streets for George Floyd was healthy…science may have had something to do with that."
ralphellis on X - "@simonmaechling What do you expect? If you lie about the climate. If you lie about the environment. If you lie about CO2. If you lie about the origins of covid. If you lie about masks. If you lie about lockdowns. If you lie about myocarditis. If you lie about ivermectin. If you lie about excess deaths. If you lie about Unreliables for electricity. If you lie about their cost. If you lie about stored backup. NOBODY WILL BELIEVE YOU ANYMORE. Ralph"
3 sentenced after bear costume used in $142K luxury car insurance scam - "Three people in California have been sentenced for insurance fraud in a bizarre scam that involved someone dressed in a bear costume damaging luxury cars. The California Insurance Department said the three used a person in a bear suit to stage fake attacks inside a Rolls-Royce and two Mercedes in 2024, then submitted fraudulent claims seeking nearly $142,000 in payouts from insurance companies. The department called it “Operation Bear Claw.”"
Employees: Too Ugly to Hire, or a Must Fire? - "Maybe ugliness is considered intentional by way of excessive tattoos, facial piercings and those big corks people put in their ears. Perhaps ugliness is unintentional. In any event, if a prospective employer does not hire you and states that it’s because you are ugly, is that a form of discrimination? The short answer is “no.” In Canada and British Columbia, there is no legislative prohibition against not hiring a person based on appearance alone. Moreover, potential legal action on behalf of the unattractive could be very complicated. One complication is that ugly people usually do not identify as such. There are no, or perhaps very few, ugly people groups, associations or clubs. Unlike other groups of people such as men, women or Catholics, ugly people have a problem identifying as ugly. Another complication is that people, being diverse and unique individuals, perceive beauty and ugliness differently. Our society places an undeniable emphasis on the value of physical beauty. We commonly associate physical traits with perceived correlating qualities or characteristics. Attractiveness is perceived to correspond with attributes such as virtue, integrity, intelligence, sensitivity, kindness, and honesty, whereas ugliness or obesity corresponds with perceptions of laziness, lack of discipline, incompetence, lack of productivity, and slovenliness. This attribution process is legally and socially acceptable. Employers use appearance traits as indicators of employee worth or qualification. In fact, from an economic perspective, some argue appearance is a valid indicator of productivity, to the extent that productivity is measured by personal, customer, or co-worker satisfaction. Employers generally retain discretion to consider whatever factors they deem important in their employment decisions. Employers routinely acknowledge the importance of an attractive appearance in employee selection. Given the immediate visibility of physical attributes, grooming, and attire, one’s appearance often constitutes an employer’s first impression of an applicant’s employability. Further, an employer can regulate and/or prohibit, as a term of the employment, dress codes, grooming standards, hair length, hairstyle, uniforms, jewellery, and visibility of body piercings and tattoos, and an employer can regulate other appearance-based requirements, unless such regulation is in contravention of the BC Human Rights Code and is based on one of the prohibited discriminatory grounds. In sum, unless you can connect your looks with your race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, age, or a criminal conviction that is unrelated to the employment as a basis of the discrimination, then you may be discriminated against based on your looks. Often, people who are overweight will commence a claim regarding a breach of the Human Rights Code based on “disability.” Perhaps one could even argue that ugliness is a physical disability; however, you would then have to admit you’re ugly, which no one wants to do."
Meme - "The people employed to get rid of a problem will always try to preserve that problem"
This explains homelessness non-profits and the rest of the homeless-industrial complex etc
