This is not a hypothetical, I have a friend who does this habitually. If it’s a one time thing and not their normal behavior, just let it go!
I use signal, I write a response like nothing has happened. I make sure to quote their message in my response. I use the timed message feature of signal and I send the response in 6 months.
He was a useful foil to vested interests. When his use wasn’t needed they stopped ignoring him.
Such a great show
Not to mention it’s a bit of fantasy to think you can just magic pastoral land into arable land, we don’t gain more cropland by giving up on animals.
Genetic mutations during cell reproduction cause cancer.
That is the somatic mutation theory of cancer. It has not been proven, it’s very popular. There are other theories such as the metabolic mitochondrial theory.
https://doi.org/10.3390/biom12050662 - Paradoxical Behavior of Oncogenes Undermines the Somatic Mutation Theory
If the prevailing theory has many paradoxes (i.e. the oncogenic paradox) , then the model needs to be updated. So no, we don’t know what causes cancer, we know what is associated with cancer.
Gene mutations absolutely have a role to play, it’s reasonable, but is it causal or part of the chain toward cancer? I think it’s necessary, but not sufficient. Hence not causal, hence it doesn’t “cause” cancer by itself.
No no, they will play with the formula so it doesn’t cure in a single jab but stabilizes it… So you need to take maintenance jabs every week.
Recurring revenue!
Why do those things cause cancer? Why do some smokers not die of cancer? The reason it’s so vague is because we don’t actually know what causes cancer. We know what is associated with cancer, but not what causes it.
We know that cancer is caused by genetic mutations during cell replication
That is the Somatic Mutation Theory the most popular theory, but it is not the only currently researched, and viable, theory of cancer.
So yes, we have theories on the genesis of cancer, we don’t have any causal data to make statements such as “excess weight causes cancer”
Article title: cause
Article: published in the journal BMJ Oncology, showed that increases in body mass index (BMI) alone are not sufficient to explain the overall rise in cancer incidence, pointing to additional, suspected or currently unknown causes.
Not cause, associated
This is the pr office for the university you think they would have a obligation to get cause and association correct.
We don’t know what causes cancer. It’s the oncogenic paradox. We have lots of theories…
Metabolic health appears to be directly linked to both body health and mental health
Eating local whole foods, nothing from a factory or a box or a bag - is a great way to remove a bunch of junk from your diet.
Check out your tg/hdl ratio on your last lipid panel, if its less then 2 its a good indicator your metabolic health is doing well, if its less then 1 then your metabolic health is doing great. If you have room for improvement then you could consider doing whole food low carb diet, as carbohydrates are heavily implicated in many instances of impaired metabolism.
Incorporate exercise and movement into every aspect of your day, don’t stay indoors, get sunlight as much as you can, don’t sit to long in one position at the office, etc. Exercise snacks, even as simple as taking the stairs, helps.
Yup, even if you had a great moderator they can’t moderate everything in real time.
So for the kind of debate club format your talking about… would need a club with invitations and limited access, gate keeping. Which will be a thing in lemmy 1.0 member only communities.
Some exist here, the problem is, even with good moderation the trolls or intellectually dishonest will wear you down and burn out your good will. Eventually when someone thoughtful comes along you don’t have the energy to engage.
You have to pace yourself.
Even if people are engaging in good faith: reading comprehension, and intellectual rigor are at all time lows. So their good faith attempts at engagement might come off as dishonest
Do a activity with others, like a game with voice chat. Meet people!
Let’s see if this works as a crypto-adventist: https://lemmy.ml/post/47788202 - https://www.statnews.com/2026/05/22/seed-oils-healthy-fats-tallow-fact-check-cardiac-health/ this person is a RD in Minnesota; the accrediting body that issues the RD license (Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics) is a private organization founded in 1917 as the American Dietetic Association by two 7th day adventists.
So the curriculum and foundation of what they studied and had to pass is from a 7DA founded organization, and it’s quite reasonable to think this person has never even heard of seventh day adventists at all, but they are pushing the agenda.
Ancel Keys has killed millions with his cherry picked papers.
I’ve been posting papers discussing how saturated fats in the absence of carbs and processed foods appear to be protective of all cause mortality
A 2020 Cochrane meta-analysis of roughly 59,000 participants across 15 randomized controlled trials found that replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat reduced combined cardiovascular events by 21%.
Not all cause mortality, that’s interesting
Cardiologists note that the risk reduction from this dietary substitution is comparable to the benefits of statin medications.
Yes. It undeniably lowers ldl… Is that a good thing? Let’s look at that all cause mortality data again… it’s missing? Oh heavens
Ultra-processed food really is a problem. The National Institutes of Health published the first randomized controlled trial on ultra-processed food in 2019 (a landmark study by Kevin Hall’s team) showing that people randomized to an ultra-processed diet consumed about 500 more calories per day and gained weight, even when macronutrients were matched precisely. The food was engineered to override satiety — proven, not suggested.
What does this dietician think a seed oil is? They were not a major source of human dietary fat over 150 years ago… They are ultra processed.
MAHA is road paved with artery-clogging cholesterol, and they’re calling it a health revolution.
Cholesterol is not a disease, if you don’t eat it your body makes it. Eating dietary cholesterol does not increase serum cholesterol. For a dietitian they don’t know much about the how the body actually works
Rehabilitating saturated fat — or casting public doubt on the evidence against it — is something those industries have spent decades and enormous lobbying dollars trying to accomplish.
It’s already been rehabilitated - https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.077 this dietitian isn’t keeping up with the literature
Isn’t making chips healthier
Yeah chips will always be unhealthy, massive carb load, drives insulin, drives chronic disease
The boring answer — eat more vegetables and legumes, less ultra-processed food, default to olive oil, and yes, the source of fat matters less than the overall dietary pattern
Less ultra processed foods includes their beloved seed oils. Just swapping out seed oils for saturated fat won’t fix major issues because it’s not the biggest lever. It’s chronic insulin which is addressed by a reduction in carbs not fat sources.
Diet doctor had a great review article on seed oils. Written by both doctors and dieticians as well - https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/vegetable-oils
Ohh, I love that turn of phrase. 7DA adjacent groups!
Xenonaughts is also quite good! Very punishing, if your into that sort of thing.
My desk and Office look like a coked up post doc arranged it after a 3 day bender of no sleep and agony to hit a submission deadline.
We have concurrent rises in obesity, suboptimal metabolic health, processed food availability, seed oil as a % of human energy, and overall reduction of animal sources foods.
I suspect these concurrent trends have a relationship