smooth_tea @ smooth_tea @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

123

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's the equivalent of the human daily dose. So adjusted for body weight. Loosely translated, it would be 15% of the daily recommended dose for mice.

They asked for a study. You give a bare url to an abstract with the quote

Perhaps you could download the entire meta study that is linked next to the abstract and go through it? And why does it matter whether I'm agreeing with the post?

From all the years of reading about artificial sugar studies, it's clear to me that there could be a risk but it is complex and varies from person to person, I find it misplaced to shout that there is absolutely no risk involved. To quote the study:

Result of this review largely agree with those of other recent systematic reviews, in that replacing sugars with NSS in the short term results in reductions in body weight, with little impact on other cardiometabolic risk factors, but is associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and mortality in the longer term.

Actually no, the keyword is equivalent, so adjusted for body weight.

No, it's the equivalent dose.

When a sample of mice were given free access to water dosed with aspartame equivalent to 15 percent of the FDA's recommended maximum daily amount for humans, they generally displayed more anxious behavior in specially designed mood tests.

I'm baffled by your willingness to elaborate at length about this, but not read the article where this is explained. Misinforming everyone in the process.

When a sample of mice were given free access to water dosed with aspartame equivalent to 15 percent of the FDA's recommended maximum daily amount for humans, they generally displayed more anxious behavior in specially designed mood tests.

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240046429

The article actually states how much. 15% of the daily recommended amount.

People also vastly overestimate how many people need to be in the known to participate in a conspiracy.

The chemical companies who dumped pfas into the environment fully aware of their problems had thousands of employees, how many of them do you think were part of the plan to keep it under wraps?

It's very easy to come up with excuses and string people along, you don't need to sit them around a table and explain your evil plot.

I always laugh at people who oversimplify conspiracies so that it becomes an "us vs them" straw man. It is more complicated than that. A few people want something, device a strategy, and then try to convince others how the goal they're trying to reach would benefit them while whitewashing the idea into something very legitimate.

This is such an everyday approach to handling things that people would never call it a conspiracy, the label is only applied when something is so outrageous that we struggle with coming to terms with it, and then we turn it into a caricature so that we can simply discard the idea.

It is never "the government". But in the 90's, a cabal of neocons drew up a plan to tighten their military grip on the world, and when 9/11 came along, they had an excuse to execute it and start waging wars in a bunch of countries while convincing everyone and the government that we were battling terrorism. That is how a conspiracy works.

To give you another example, over the course of decades, the UK sprayed millions of it's citizens in secret chemical warfare tests that resemble the popular "chemtrail" theory. A testimony to how compartmentalization is perfectly able to keep secrets when needed. And even now that's in the open, very few people know about it.

But in reality, there's often no need to keep conspiracies secret when you were able to convince the majority of people that conspiracies don't exist. All that's required then, is to call something a conspiracy, and people will turn out it droves to mock anyone who dares to suggest its legitimacy.

I'm not asking you to take my word for it. Do with it as you please.

I'll provide one just to pique your interest.

Despite the presence in cannabis smoke of known carcinogens, toxic gases, and particulates, cannabis smoking does not seem to increase risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or airway cancers. In fact, there is even a suggestion that at low doses, cannabis smoking may be protective for both conditions.

https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201302-034ED#:~:text=Despite%20the%20presence%20in%20cannabis,be%20protective%20for%20both%20conditions.

Or heck, another one.

However, after adjusting for age, gender, race, smoking history, and CCI, the results indicated that cannabis use could significantly lower the risk of getting COVID-19 [adjusted OR (AOR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.71–0.92, P = 0.001].

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9012397/#:~:text=However%2C%20after%20adjusting%20for%20age,0.92%2C%20P%20%3D%200.001%5D.

No level of alcohol consumption is safe when it comes to human health, according to a WHO statement released in January, 2023. The data behind this dire warning come from a 2021 study that estimated the number of incident cancers attributable to alcohol consumption in the EU in 2017—light to moderate drinking (1–2 drinks per day) was responsible for 23 300 new cases of cancer. New Canadian guidelines take a strong stance too, suggesting that any more than two drinks per week puts your health at risk. Does this mean the days of safely enjoying a tipple are officially behind us?

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanrhe/article/PIIS2665-9913(23)00073-5/fulltext#:~:text=23)00073%2D5-,Alcohol%20and%20health%3A%20all%2C%20none,%2C%20or%20somewhere%20in%2Dbetween%3F&text=No%20level%20of%20alcohol%20consumption,statement%20released%20in%20January%2C%202023.

Weed smokers are less likely to get lung cancer than non smokers, they have a bigger lung capacity and it acts like a bronchodilator, making it (the substance, not the smoking part) an effective medicine in patients with asthma. People who've used marijuana and develop COPD also have a lower mortality rate, and it is beneficial when it comes to corona as well. But yes, smoke is still bad for you.

What you're describing is exactly the delusion I was talking about. And it's very typical these days. People don't want nuance, they want perfect heroes or complete villains, complete polarization, anything in-between is too complex and we're too insecure to be associated with someone who's done something bad. I don't need a messiah, in fact I think that is exactly the problem that is the foundation of your line of thinking.

I have no problem admiring the good Pavlov or Ford did, and I don't really care that they did something bad, it's irrelevant to the discussion, really. And I can say that because I believe that recognizing their achievements says absolutely nothing about me agreeing with what they did wrong. I think that people who have to point out the worst are ultimately scared that if they don't do that, it would say something about themselves.

Move forward as a society, that's a good one. Please do tell how you're going to change your ways now that you know someone famous did something heinous. Fuck all is going to happen, and all of this unearthing of our evil past to better ourselves is just a form of self delusion and shock value, typical for the outrage culture of these days.

The only reaction to this new found wisdom is "and then what"? And if you took two seconds to analyze the situation instead of getting on your high horse to start a new crusade you'd probably come to the same conclusion.

Cancelling? The fuck are we cancelling?

What is being implied here is that because he did something bad, all of a sudden that has to be mentioned every time he's brought up. It's completely pointless and just a testimony to how insecure we are as a society. It's like having to cover up female ankles in case we get "urges". It's completely ridiculous.

This is the not how we move forward as a society, in fact it is a form of regression and infantility. An inability to hold two opposing ideas in our heads and instead throwing out the baby with the bath water because everyone constantly needs to reassure the person next to them how virtuous they are.

A progressive society does not need to retroactively change history, it can accept the imperfections of the past in the knowledge that we've already changed.

Yes, apparently four times less than some though. The chemicals used to wash them, not to mention the water waste, are really impactful if you start multiplying them among millions of people.

Everything evolves as a wave of extremes and eventually finds some sort of equilibrium, trying to contain that is a fool's errand.

Jfc, to what end? All this retroactive cancelling of dead people is just diddling yourself for feel-good reasons. Get over it and be different instead of waving some flag that says you are different.

You using 4 towels isn't hurting anyone anymore than me using one towel does.

I can only guess where the idea of wastefulness is such an alien concept that it's completely overlooked here.

Pro tip if this happens, add more water.

How is this getting upvotes? That's like saying your cow's name is actually "mammal". The post was not about a general term to label a group of things.