AddyA

ABOUT REVIEW ARTICLES Not even scientists take review articles literally. They are written by individuals who often have their own biases and perspectives (usually influenced by their backer's demands). Think Big Food and Big Pharma. Now, let's take a look at the casually dropped links from a previous post. #1 https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/should-you-try-the-keto-diet This is a review article or summary piece about the ketogenic diet, but it proves nothing. It's based on existing bits of research and opinions, but the results are all over the place. Whenever you read a so-called scientific study like this, there are three words to look out for, linked, associated, and may. Stop reading the moment you see any of those words because it's scaremongering junk science funded by bad actors (see above). Those who unequivocally disagree are most likely from the pro-booster camp, if you know what I mean ;) And BTW, don't let the word HARVARD suck you in. Seriously, some of the most harmful dietary guidelines ever published have come out of that dangerous institution. #2 https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/dangers-of-keto-diet Oh, look, another review article. The text here is a synthesis of findings from multiple studies, clinical observations and potential associations. It does not present any new research or prove anything. The evidence it spouts comes from a mishmash of shallow clinical studies, epidemiological research, and a handful of biased reports. Thus, the review relies on secondary sources and research trends but fails to provide any substantive conclusions. #3 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7480775/ Whoops a daisy! This is yet another review study that's trying to fool the layperson. Its findings on the KD's effects are inconclusive due to limitations in study design, sample size, and duration (like most of the junk dietary science fed into the public domain). It even states that larger studies with longer follow-ups are needed to determine accurate outcomes, therefore making its conclusion opinion-based trash, not facts. A wise man once said, believe nothing you hear, only half of what you read. He was right. Question everything folks. Empower yourself with critical thinking and a healthy does of skepticism.

Losing weight and keeping off the fat is the easiest thing in the world. See, there are only three macronutrients, Fat, Protein, and Carbohydrates. Only two of those are essential to life, and it ain't the last one. You wanna lose weight and never gain an ounce? Just eat an animal-based diet and say no to all plants, including fruits, veggies, nuts, seeds, grains, and oils. PLANTS? Yes, plants. Anyone who's struggling to lose weight should look at the plants on their plate. The body converts ALL carbs into blood sugar (glucose). Your body's cells only have so much room for glucose storage. And anything over a teaspoon of glucose in the blood is toxic and MUST be removed quickly. The excess glucose in the bloodstream simply gets converted into fat and stored in the adipose. And that's what makes you chubby! POPULAR PLANT FOODS (CARBS) CONVERTED TO TEASPOONS OF SUGAR PER SERVING 1 cup of BOILED Rice: 45g carbs = 11.25 teaspoons of sugar 1 medium BOILED potato: 37g carbs = 9.25 teaspoons of sugar 1 cup of COOKED oatmeal: 27g carbs = 6.75 teaspoons of sugar 1 medium Banana: 27g carbs = 6.75 teaspoons of sugar 1 cup of COOKED pasta: 25g carbs = 6.25 teaspoons of sugar 1 medium apple: 25g carbs = 6.25 teaspoons of sugar 1 single slice of white bread: 15g carbs = 3.75 teaspoons of sugar POPULAR ANIMAL FOODS CONVERTED TO TEASPOONS OF SUGAR PER SERVING Beef: 0 grams carbs = 0 teaspoons of sugar Lamb: 0 grams carbs = 0 teaspoons of sugar Pork: 0 grams carbs = 0 teaspoons of sugar Chicken: 0 grams carbs = 0 teaspoons of sugar Eggs: ~0.6 grams carbs per large egg = 0.15 teaspoons of sugar Fish: 0 grams = 0 teaspoons of sugar HEART-HEALTHY ANIMAL FATS CONVERTED TO TEASPOONS OF SUGAR Tallow: 0 grams = 0 teaspoons of sugar Lard: 0 grams = 0 teaspoons of sugar Butter: 0.1 grams per 100 grams 0.025 teaspoons of sugar Ghee: 0 grams = 0 teaspoons of sugar So, there you go. No need to complicate weight gain, weight loss, and weight maintenance ever again 😉. And anyone who still thinks saturated fat, cholesterol, and red meat are dangerous, well.... "W-w-w-w... Here Shep, c'mon, boy!"

I wonder what happened to the OP (roger101). Looks like the thread was totally hijacked from the second response. Eeee, it's hard to keep track sometimes . I blame ADHD and its variants!

Oh, go on then, here's a little something to chew over. The data is easy to fact check for anyone who doubts it.

1979? That's not even a nanosecond. You need to go a lot further back than that if you're compare global temperatures. How about providing some chart data from before the industrial revolution. That's when the human muck really started to hit the proverbial climate fan, right?

Most of the "WARNING! Meat May/Might/Could…." studies with attention-grabbing headlines are funded by billionaires. They are the people heavily invested in plant-based food production, especially synthetic, heavily processed fake meat made from vegan pea protein granules. All these so-called studies are epidemiological (observational) and do not show causation. Observational data in and of itself is junk research and has no place in the public domain. Scientists are supposed to use it to potentially generate hypothesis, not pass on weak associations as potential dangers to media outlets. But they do! AVOID REAL FOOD! It's ironic that—according to researchers—certain real foods have become harmful to human health, such as meats, eggs, fish, poultry, etc. Well, look what happened to the peoples of the world after the dietary guidelines suggested low-fat, low-cholesterol, as the way forward. How's that working out for your waistline? WHO CONTROLS THE NARRATIVE? What most people don't realize is that the the powerful plant-based lobbyist control what you see, hear, and read. Studies that disagree with their vested interests are buried so deep that they never see the light of day. For example, how many of you reading here know anything about the study below? Not many, that's for sure, but it deserves as much publicity as sensational headlines controlled by those invested in and pushing the vegan and vegetarian lifestyle. THE HARVARD CARNIVORE DIET STUDY In 2020, a team of researchers at Harvard University conducted the first mainstream study on the carnivore diet. The study surveyed over 2000 carnivore dieters. And the findings were published on 2 November 2021 in Current Developments in Nutrition. NATIONALITY 64% of participants were from the United States and Canada, 11% from Europe, and 8% from Australia. SEX Two-thirds of the participants were male. One-third were female. AGE Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 85. The median age was 44. WEIGHT Participant body weight ranged from 38 kg to 176 kg (84 lb to 388 lb). The median weight was 76 kg (168 lb.) CHANGES IN HEALTH STATUS 95% improved overall health 91% improved hunger/food cravings 89% improved energy 85% improved mental clarity 83% improved focus 78% improved strength 76% improved endurance 69% improved sleep 69% improved chronic disease 66% improved memory HOW CHRONIC CONDITIONS CHANGED 98% improved or resolved diabetes and insulin resistance 97% improved or resolved gastrointestinal conditions 96% improved or resolved musculoskeletal issues 96% improved or resolved psychiatric symptoms 93% improved or resolved overweight/obesity 93% improved or resolved hypertension 92% improved or resolved urologic issues 92% improved or resolved dermatologic issues 89% improved or resolved autoimmune conditions 84% improved or resolved cardiovascular issues HOW MEDICATION USE CHANGED 100% discontinued other diabetes injectables 92% discontinued insulin for type 2 diabetes altogether 90% discontinued or decreased insulin 84% discontinued oral diabetes medications. IN CONCLUSION Shhhhhhh! There's no big money in a proper human diet or profits for big pharama who treat your factory food-born obesity and associated illnesses.

Well, some might argue that it's time to change the narrative and start spreading NEW information. It's just a thought. Only this time, the information is based on a "bucketful of stats" that oppose the notion. TAKE IT AWAY PROF…. As Professor Homburg argues in the video above (published only a few days ago), COVID-19 was not a serious public health threat. Thus, the government's response was based on fear-mongering and total misinformation. I think that applies to all governments that followed the advice of the non-elected elite organizations. I'm referring to the bodies telling world governments how best to control their populace. YOU CAN'T ALL BE RIGHT…. RIGHT? Professor Homburg produces his findings based on HARD EVIDENCE. He cites data showing that hospital admissions, deaths, and other metrics were not significantly higher than normal during the pandemic. I know the UK hospitals were turned into ghost towns—you know, just in case! There was no room at the inn unless your illness was C19-related. Anyway, the Professor also criticizes his government's response to the pandemic, saying it was based on fear-mongering and misinformation. Many of the AN critical thinkers suspected the same of their respective governments. Specifically, Homburg makes the following claims: FACT: Hospital admissions in Germany fell to a historic low in 2020. FACT: There were no more severe respiratory illnesses in 2020 and 2021 than in previous years. FACT: Deaths in 2020 were not higher than normal, and the increase in deaths in 2021 was due to other factors, such as an influenza pandemic. FACT: People who died with or from COVID-19 were, on average, 83 years old, which is the same age as the average death rate in Germany. FACT: Sweden, which did not implement strict lockdown measures, fared better than Germany during the pandemic. Homburg goes on to say that the pandemic would not have even been noticed without the PCR tests. In summary, these are all things the COVID Skeptics on AN have been saying for the past few years, only to be ridiculed, suspended, and laughed at. THE TRANSNATIONAL ELITE RULE ROCK I wonder how many pro-everything COVID remain adamant and believe the above findings are a load of old b*llocks. And if yes, perhaps they could partake in an intelligent and good-natured debate to explain to the COVID skeptics why they think they're right. But to do that, they must also explain why they feel Professor Homburg (and others like him) are still wrong.

The Health Ministry is right to debunk the New Year cancellation over the XBC Covid variant scare as fake news. With so many post-COVID reports and leaks coming to light, I doubt any democratic government would dare to bring back the draconian laws of the past. For years, a few critical thinkers on AN have highlighted the scaremongering tactics of the global elite. In contrast, others laughed and continue to mock, shouting things through their screens such as ANTI-VAXXER, and FLAT EARTHER, or outright CONSPIRACY THEORISTS. Well, as the bold and brave emerge in increasing numbers, those who think the draconian measures were worthwhile and for the good of humanity might want to rethink their narrative. COVID MADNESS THAT NEVER HAD TO HAPPEN! Below is a video by Professor Homburg that is fresh out of Germany. He's discussing the COVID Madness at the German Bundestag (Parliament).

Negative Health Effects of Wearing Masks According to Research, 2021 Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards? By Kai Kisielinski, Paul Giboni, Andreas Presche, Bernd Klosterhalfen, David Graessel, Stefan Funken, Oliver Kempski and Oliver Hirsch. Here's a summary from the said paper, but feel free to read it in its entirety: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/8/4344 This study analyzes 65 scientific papers on the negative health effects of wearing masks. 44 of these papers demonstrate statistically significant negative effects, including, but not limited to the following: PHYSICAL: Elevated blood carbon dioxide (CO2): This can lead to headaches, respiratory irritation, increased blood pressure, and heart rate. Decreased blood oxygen saturation (SpO2): This can cause fatigue, confusion, and impaired thinking. Increased heart rate Increased respiratory rate Skin temperature rise under the mask Difficulty breathing Dizziness Listlessness Impaired thinking Concentration problems PSYCHOLOGICAL: Confusion Decreased thinking ability Disorientation Impaired cognitive abilities Decreased psychomotoric abilities OTHER: Interference with temperature regulation Impaired field of vision Impaired non-verbal and verbal communication These negative effects are observed with all types of masks, including surgical, N95, and community masks. The study concludes that wearing masks can have long-term health consequences, even if the effects are not immediately noticeable. Key Points: 44 out of 65 studies found statistically significant negative effects of wearing masks. Negative effects include increased CO2, decreased SpO2, increased heart rate, respiratory rate, and skin temperature, as well as fatigue, confusion, and impaired thinking. Masks can negatively impact cognitive abilities, temperature regulation, vision, and communication. Long-term health consequences of mask-wearing are possible There will still be some that refute the findings in this study, but umm... well...., y' know!

Duplicate post in error.

Here are a few pics for those of you who are interested. Nat Motors did a fantastic job, but it cost more than I'd initially planned. That's because I kept suggesting we swap even more new parts. Anyway, the engine seems to have a bit more torque than before. The fuel economy seems better as well. I reckon this ol' gal will be around long after I pop my socks. First, here's how she looked at the start of the tart-up And here is how my revamped 17-year-old Honda Wave looks now.

The original message was that the vaccine would stop you contracting and spreading the virus. Some might say that was misleading information to get folks jabbed. Other might see it as fake news.

It doesn't have to be like that. There would be fewer unwanted pregnancies if the religious flocks followed common sense instead of the man upstairs. Yes or no? Even that bloke in Rome told the Filipinos to stop breeding like rabbits. Yet, woe betide anyone who dares to use contraception as a sensible precaution. Scientists refer to humans as the Great Apes, though I would remove the adjective. Credible source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30890989

The question people need to ask themselves is this: Are boosters in the public interest or is the real boost here to BIG PHARMA profits? Only those who study all sides of the conversation are qualified to respond, of course. Unless I'm being naive, in which case you must correct me.