This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Tolstoshev, in Plant-based diet cuts sleep apnoea risk by a fifth, research shows

Shitty study:


Self reported diet

Didn’t control for weight

We might as well conclude that people without apnea lie more, or that people with apnea have memory loss about what they ate. But the truth is that plant based diet is just a proxy for weight which we already knew causes apnea.


Indeed, proxy for weight or a not-poverty diet

RainfallSonata, in Florida’s surgeon general told the FDA that COVID-19 vaccines aren’t safe. The FDA calls that misinformation

Can they take away his medical license (I guess Im assuming he has one. It’s Florida, though, so who knows.)? Cause unless he’s got scientific evidence to back his claims, they should limit his ability to practice.


Yes, it is.

bluGill avatar

There is no national medical license, each state handles it alone. If you practice in two states both states need to license you - our license in one state does not transfer to a different one automatically.

Which is to say is in in charge of his own medical certificate.


And as evidenced by FL, some States' process are corrupt allowing unqualified idiots to practice.

HubertManne avatar

in addition the medical community is way full of itself and it takes a lot to delicense a physician and its easier for them to get it back. Doctors view themselves as elite and a doctor is to valuable to not be used. This is why it cracks me up around lawyer jokes and harping on lawyers. Lawyers get disbarred way more easily. Their community is much more likely to repercussions.


Plus if you can't meet the requirements you just need to be wealthy and connected enough to create a new accrediting body which says you meet theirs.


I’m predicting right now that he will suffer zero (meaningful) consequences. I’m sick of it, but I’ve seen it happen often enough now to not be surprised by it.

Carnelian, in Vaping harms heart and lungs: American Heart Association

Is anyone else just astonished that sources almost never discuss the nuance between weed/nic vapes?

The entire EVALI fiasco was 100% correlated with cheap/knock off THC vapes using vitamin E acetate. No normal nicotine vape was ever associated with it, but they always get casually lumped in when these discussions come up.

As for blood pressure and heart rate, duh, nicotine is a stimulant. The exact same thing happens when you drink coffee. Or if you were to chew smoking cessation gum.

It just feels like 99% of the news you hear about vapes now is unadulterated tobacco industry propaganda. Literally everyone who smokes cigarettes would be better off switching to vapes, and in the beginning, that was the where the hype for the product was generally centered


I mean additionally though, I also don't care. I've made my decision to use vape pens, it feels much better than actual smoke on my day to day life. So take your studies and shove em.


Agreed. As an ex smoker and current vaper for about 6 years, the change in my health was phenomenal and immediately noticed. The real problem with vaping(for me)is how easy it is now to get a nicotine fix on demand in many situations, but that’s a different discussion.


For sure.

I was smoking 2+ packs per day for years, and was able to switch to vaping exclusively. Did that for a couple years and eventually quit nicotine outright by reducing the nic content of my liquid and tapering down.

The improvement to my health switching from cigs to vaping was actually way larger than going from vapes to nothing lol. Vaping caused some dry mouth for me, and I had a little bit of gum irritation that cleared up after quitting, but that was about it. On cigs I couldn’t make it up two flights of stairs without wheezing lol.


I do not miss the mornings waking up coughing and out of breath because I had a cigarette right before bed. When I started vaping to quit, I could take a deep breath in first thing in the morning without coughing. As much hate and vitriol people hold for vapes, I’m happy I used them. Without them, I’d still be smoking cigarettes today.

thisisawayoflife, (edited ) in Terminally ill Connecticut woman ends her life on her own terms, in Vermont

We do it for animals but we hesitate for humans. Truly pathetic.

Watched my mom die from terminal cancer of the liver and she suffered terribly. Looked like she was ready to give birth when her heart finally stopped. My sibling is a hardcore Christian and when my mom asked about assisted suicide, sibling expressed her uselessly ignorant point of view, explaining that she wouldn’t be able to be there to “inject” her. Needless to say, that’s not how it happens.

People shouldn’t be made to suffer, and fuck religious people that push that horseshit dogma on others. Had to hear my mom cry, questioning her faith that if God existed, why would he make people suffer like this. It was terrible.

That goes for some oncologists, too. My mother’s liver was completely destroyed (that they somehow didn’t notice while she was in chemo for her breast cancer) and the oncologist wanted to continue treating her. Another doctor, who broke the news to us and showed us the images of her liver, came to our defense and tore that oncologist a new one. That was already after the first round of chemo had started and Mom was basically incoherent. I had watched her handle chemo the first time around like a champion. This time, it practically killed her. Had she kept doing chemo, she would have died much faster and it would have been terrible.

I don’t know what else to say. Fuck cancer, fuck religious dogma and fuck physicians that don’t keep the patients best interests at heart.

SweatyFireBalls, in Don't call me vegan: People more likely to go meatless if food labelled 'sustainable' instead

I don’t eat meat and haven’t for a long time, the last few years I’ve been vegetarian.

There was a period of time I ate vegan. I still practice some things to this day, trying to eat less processed foods, sourcing things from as humane of a source as possible and that means not just animals, but also people. That’s a part of being vegan, if it exploits anything, you avoid it.

It’s hard, especially living in a country that has only partially embraced it. You try and live outside that norm, outside of a big city, and sourcing what you want and at a reasonable price is a pain in the ass.

Now to my point, I never felt so much animosity as when I mentioned being vegan. People would ask me what is wrong with me, I would often get lectured on how my perceptions on the meat industry is wrong, and told how I was harming my body by not getting enough protein.

I’m not here to preach my stances.

However, that animosity wasn’t just from people with typical diets. What stopped me at first was the reputation vegans had. I didn’t want to be associated with that at the time, while I believe things need to change I’m also against shoving my views on someone. Eventually, I met some vegans and they were the opposite of what I heard, I asked about what they do and how they eat, and I tried it.

When I eat with someone new, and I say I’m vegetarian the response is almost always positive, except those who like to try and belittle my manhood because I don’t eat meat.

However, what really affected my view towards veganism and why I eventually started saying I eat plant based was because of that scrutiny. People felt so nosy and judgemental. Then I decided maybe I should seek like minded people.

I checked out vegan subreddits, looked for other vegans to meet irl and pretty often when i would mention I’m vegan but I’m against lecturing, I would get the most vile responses. I still remember a time on Reddit that I said exactly that and was harassed by a lot of accounts telling me I was worse for the vegan movement than meat eaters because I wasn’t actively pushing my beliefs. So I started to feel isolated, when I would be around some people they would say “oh you’re still vegan?” And when I eventually went back to being vegetarian I still sometimes hear “I knew it wouldn’t last” or sometimes flamed for the exact kind of view I’m posting now by individuals who may still think I’m a problem.

This is a long winded way of saying, I could have guessed the results of that study and I’m not surprised. I think one of the biggest enemies of the movement is themselves in my experience, and it makes me sad because I really do wish it would catch on more. I wish I didn’t sometimes feel like I have to hide my diet, and I wish people wouldn’t put so much value on a damn food packaging label.

Semi-Hemi-Demigod avatar

I think a lot of the problems we have around eating or not eating meat are with identity. You can't just enjoy a vegan meal, or eat less meat. You have to make it your identity: You are a vegan and you swear off all meat products. And you must evangelize or you're not a good vegan.

Conversely, just 12% of the population - mainly males between 50 and 65 - eat half the beef in the country. Why? Because they identify as manly manly men and manly men eat meat. Any suggestion that they eat less, even seeing other men eating less meat, attacks a core part of their identity.

These sorts of identities make it harder for people to change their behavior, and are making it harder to reduce meat consumption to the levels we need.


Why? Because they identify as manly manly men and manly men eat meat. Any suggestion that they eat less, even seeing other men eating less meat, attacks a core part of their identity.

Was that in the study or did you just make that part up?

Semi-Hemi-Demigod avatar

It's not in the study I linked to, but here's another study that shows this I'm not making it up.

Even ordinary threats to masculinity trigger anxiety. Since the incorporation of meat signals masculinity, it is used to psychologically defend the ego against omnipresent threats to coveted masculine status.


You’ve established both points independently, but not the correlation between them.


Regarding dietary choices as a personality trait, I feel for you.

Personally, as long as it’s not being forced on me, I really don’t care what anybody chooses to eat or not eat…but I’ve definitely seen vegetarian and vegan folks get some harassment for their choices, and I’ve also certainly seen the reverse, with vegetarian and vegan eaters shaming others who don’t do as they do (in many cases, exactly as they do). Hell I’ve been on the receiving end of it myself.

While two wrongs don’t make a right, and I’m sure vegetarians/vegans are on the receiving end of that sort of flak far more often…on the other hand, I think that the percentage of people who give others a hard time about what they’re eating is far higher among the vegetarian/vegan community than outside it. That is to say, it appears that the “preachy, holier-than-thou vegetarian/vegan” is a very well-earned/deserved stereotype…as those things go. Even extending, as you’ve unfortunately had to deal with, to turning their derision on members of their own community. They’ve also done themselves no favors by making it less a matter of “what you eat” and more a matter of “who you are”.

The identity politics of vegetarianism and veganism certainly create a lot more potential for toxicity…and it’s unfortunate: I’m sure there are plenty of people who might consider reducing or even eliminating meat from their diets, but the thought of being associated with these groups is enough to keep them content with the status quo.

BraveSirZaphod, in Twin research indicates that a vegan diet improves cardiovascular health
BraveSirZaphod avatar

I think it's important to remember that this does not mean that you should immediately go vegan or you will perish. Rather, consider how you might simply reduce the amount of meat you eat and what other more healthy substitutions you might be able to make in you diet. The researchers speculated that some of the relevant factors were a reduction in saturated fat, an increase in dietary fiber, and a net reduction in calories. Plants are generally low in saturated fat, low in calories, and high in fiber, so that tracks pretty cleanly.

So, going forward, you might consider ways you can inch your diet more in that direction. Dietary changes need to be relatively slow and steady or you'll never adhere to them, and even if you don't want to make large changes, there are still positive things you can do. Swap chips for lightly salted popcorn. Replace soda with sparkling water (perhaps with some artificial sweetener if you really need it). Swap out beef for lean pork, or better yet, chicken. When frying, consider olive oil instead of butter.

You don't need to let the perfect be the enemy of the good here. Just look at your diet and see if there are any low-effort changes you can make that might still have a large impact. There's almost certainly more than you think.


Regarding olive oil, I also like avocado oil. You can fry it a bit hotter without it burning, and has a milder flavor. Also get a good oil sprayer like [this ]( 18 Ounce Reusable Oil Sprayer one and you can use it on bread instead of butter.

Reduce is a great way to put it. You don’t need an entire oversized piece of chicken breast to round out your meal. I remember reading about a Chinese man who came over here being astonished that one person eats the amount of meat he expected to be for the entire family. Think of it less about the volume of meat you are intending, but rather the space wasted that could have fit more vegetables that give you necessary vitamins. Also, vegetables don’t have to taste bad. Try a few recipes that are more complicated than “stick in microwave and press on” and you can get them pretty delicious. Lightly fry them in a pan with garlic and put the lid on after to let the heat finish cooking the inside. Or look up other recipes. We cling to the large meat and maybe large serving of potatoes with a small veggie portion because that is what we know. But there is better.

BraveSirZaphod avatar

That's a huge point re: vegetable preparation. I used to be horrendously picky growing up, and while I've improved quite a lot, vegetables were still a bit of a weak spot for me. But roasted veggies in an air fryer has completely changed the game for me. Brussels sprouts with some olive oil, whatever spice mix I like, and topped with a bit of grated Parmesan is absolutely delightful.

It actually pains me that there are people who eat them boiled with no seasoning.

givesomefucks, in A brain injury removed my ability to perceive time. Here's what it's like in a world without time

“Most recent brain research has found that the brain is a lot less localized than we previously thought. That is, a specific piece of information (i.e., your grandmother’s face) does not reside in a precise location in the brain, but may involve tens of thousands of different small processing sites throughout the brainstem and cortex,” says Dr. Brown.

This is one of those things that’s just a common misconception.

Like, there are specific areas of the brain that almost always do the same thing. But human variation is a big deal, especially with the brain.

Science has known conclusively for like 50 years that any area of the brain can do any task. If your born without “the language center” another part of your brain will likely get co opted to process language.

Even if the corpus callosum is separated as a teen, the other hemisphere will likely develop it’s own language center.

Late 20s or older and you’re likely stuck with half your brain not being able to vocally communicate.

But most people never learn about stuff that in depth, but think what was covered in highschool science was all the science there is. It’s not, you’re just getting the generic “most of the time” answers.


You’re* born

Its* own

Nawor3565, in Should you microwave your food?

Microwaves will not irradiate or otherwise damage your food. They’ll make it chewy or soggy sometimes, but that’s about it.

Crackhappy, in L.A. County Public Health warns about traveler with measles visiting local attractions, including Universal Studios and Santa Monica Pier avatar

It is simply ridiculous that measles are still a thing.

RamblingPanda, in Senate probing whether ER care has been harmed by growing role of private-equity firms

Some things should not be for profit, including and starting with healthcare.

AFKBRBChocolate, in New Study Finds Eating Eggs May Not Increase Cholesterol Levels

It’s a subject I’m always curious about - not eggs specifically, but cholesterol intake, serum cholesterol, and heart disease.

A few years ago, I had a physical and my doctor said my cholesterol was high, but he also said there was a contraindicator, and he didn’t want to put me on statens unnecessarily, so he had my get a coronary calcium scan, which is like a CT scan of your torso and they can measure how much buildup is in your arteries. The ranges are:

  • 0 = no calcified plaque detected (risk of coronary artery disease is very low – less than 5%)
  • 1-10 = calcium detected in extremely minimal levels (risk of coronary diseases is still low – less than 10%)
  • 11-100 = mild levels of plaque detected with certainty (minimal narrowing of heart arteries is likely)
  • 101-300 = moderate levels of plaque detected (relatively high risk of a heart attack within 3-5 years)
  • 300-400 = extensive levels of plaque detected (very high risk of heart attack, high levels of vascular disease are present)

I was in my late 50s, so something like 50 would be typical, but it came back as zero. I had relatively high cholesterol, but zero plaque buildup in my arteries relatively late in life.

I’m told that the relationship between cholesterol intake and heart disease isn’t well understood, and that there’s certainly a genetic component. Articles and studies like this one always catch my eye.

Hamartiogonic, avatar

Cholesterol, low density lipoprotein and atherosclerosis are three separate topics. Trying to take shortcuts may result in getting the wrong idea of what’s going on. Cholesterol does work as a decent indicator, but it isn’t guaranteed to work every time. Apparently you are one of the many exceptions to the general rule of thumb.

Binthinkin, in Older Americans now have twice as many STIs as a decade ago

Yea they’re still hitting up Jdate and Christian singles which have to be hotbeds for STDs since I know people who have gotten them from people on those sites.

The boomers just keep proving how utterly stupid and reckless they are.

Darrell_Winfield, in Pregnancy care was always lacking in jails. It could get worse.

There is… A LOT to unpack here. I want to address multiple points here, but know that my background is that I am a professional at, and frequently deal with, first trimester bleeding.

First off, anonymous welfare check for miscarriage. Welfare checks have their role, this is not their role. I do wonder, though, if this was a false pretense provided by the police. Obviously, she had warrants. Multiple, as the plurality in the original post implies. The welfare check might have been a pretense to arrest her for the warrant(s).

Let’s address the warrant(s) next. Missed court date because she was in the hospital receiving medical care. Very reasonable. Very easy to submit documentation to the courts to receive a retrial. Mail it in, day trip, whatever. This is a basic necessity of our judicial system. Fail to do that? You get warrant(s) and arrested.

I’m not addressing the drug aspect. Whether it’s weed dust or a kilo of cocaine, it doesn’t change the rest of this story.

Okay, so now she’s in the holding cell, requesting medical treatment. Let me address the medical perspective. First trimester bleeds are rarely life threatening. They can threaten the pregnancy, but nothing will be done in first trimester. Saying her “bleeding worsened” is very nonspecific. That being said, this is a condition that obviously required medical evaluation. The officers can say they evaluated for the extent of bleeding by how many pads she was going through, how soaked they are, etc. Maybe a judge will find that reasonable. Most police I know can recognize hemorrhage, which obviously hindsight tells us it was not. But police are not medical professionals, and we should not ask that of them. There is a way to bring her to an ER in custody for this evaluation, to be returned to jail after being deemed stable. By the post, they did not do this.

So in summary, while this may be touted as a Roe v Wade conversation, this is much more complex and has many other intricacies than simply abortion law.

Edit: I read the full article after creating this comment from the text in the post. She actually did receive medical evaluation. They had a nurse in the jail evaluate her and deemed her stable and not hemorrhaging. I’m not sure an emergency department would do anything more than the same evaluation, maybe an ultrasound which wouldn’t really change things.


Dude, I’m just gonna chime in and say, I’m a critical care nurse and I am 100% NOT qualified to deem a bleeding pregnant woman stable. I’m not OB trained. I have no idea how to assess that.

I have no confidence that a jail nurse would be competent to make that determination either.


There are many different variations on “stable”. I don’t know you, but I haven’t met a critical care nurse who doesn’t recognize a hypotensive and tachycardic patient as unstable. That’s more what I’m getting at with “stable”. Mostly that’s what the management of first trimester bleeds are. Hemodynamic stability from hemorrhage or sepsis from retained products. Those are pretty common for ICU management, but are very rare in first trimester, so you probably haven’t seen a lot of those.

I’m not one to compliment jail nurses and have seen lots of their screw ups.


I would be completely comfortable declaring her unstable if I saw those signs. I would not be comfortable declaring her stable if I didn’t see them because I don’t know what else I should be assessing and I have no experience to guide me in how quickly or not quickly a patient in her condition can decompensate. I think I personally would have defaulted to sending her to an ED for further (and better) evaluation.

Maeve, in Pregnancy care was always lacking in jails. It could get worse.

So will the cops be charged for fetacide?


No, cops don’t face repercussions.

She’ll be charged with it because she let the baby die by resisting something or other…

themeatbridge, in 'Something needs to change.' Woman denied abortion in South Carolina challenges ban

“The government want[s] us to be responsible. Well, I’m telling you right now — I had birth control. I tracked my period. I took the pregnancy test as soon as possible,” said Shelton. “And even then, I could not figure out how to get this procedure done.”

I would bet dollars to donuts that this poor woman supported abortion restrictions before she wanted one. Based on the way she’s talking about it, she’s acting like most women (not her, of course) seeking abortions are irresponsible. And the end of the article, she has a quote that 6 weeks is not long enough for responsible women, as though there is any length of time that makes sense for legislators to make medical decisions for women and their doctors.


I read her statements more as “I took reasonable steps to protect myself, which ultimately didn’t work, and then my state made it impossible to get professional medical care.”

themeatbridge, (edited )

That’s entirely possible. It just struck me wrong the way she was talking about how she was being responsible and 6 weeks isn’t enough for people who do everything right. It kind of implies that she thinks there should be a line, but 6 weeks is too soon.

Like, why do the “reasonable” steps matter at all? What difference does it make that she was using contraception? An abortion is an abortion, and the people involved in the decision to have one or not are the mother and the doctor.

dohpaz42, avatar

I’ll be honest, you seem to be jumping to a lot of conclusions about this woman. Nowhere does she say anything about doing everything right. Yes she has to defend herself. She’s a woman who got pregnant out of wedlock. Do you not understand the stigmas women have to endure because of things like men and religion? I’d be apprehensive too if I were in her position. You’re right though, it shouldn’t matter about reasonable steps. But they do matter. And that’s a travesty too.


She’s making a legal case presenting herself as the perfect case scenario. It’s just a tactic to present the best argument possible to get the law overturned for everyone, even people who can’t pretend to be perfect.


No, see this is why I’m irritated by the argument. By implying that there is a “perfect,” you concede far too much to the fascists. The best argument possible is this is a private decision between a woman and her doctor. Anyone who disagrees is an asshole, and should be made to feel like one.

If there was a law that we stone women who commit adultery to death, you wouldn’t argue against it by pointing out the child bride of a coma patient fell in love with her husband’s caregiver, and they found comfort in each others’ arms. No, the law is bad because it is barbaric, evil, and misogynistic.

By trying to argue that she did everything “responsible” to avoid a pregnancy, you leave the door open for the fascist to say “ah-ha, but she didn’t do everything she could, because she got pregnant.” There’s no compromise to be had with fascism.


Ok, when you can win in court with that strategy, go for it.

In the meanwhile, I’ll accept the most likely to win a good outcome and get this law overturned. Sorry, I’ll forever be realpolitik like that.


If you think she will get the law overturned, and it will stop there, you’re in for a sad ride.


Ok, well you wave your magic wand and fix all the problems all at once. I, for one, am not going to hold my breath for that. Better is better.


I’d rather push for actual progress than attempt to compromise with fascists and concede half their argument. Progress is the slow boring of hard boards. Conceding ground is giving comfort to those who would oppress and subjugate everyone else.


Overturning a law that hurts women isn’t progress? Because the way they’re choosing to argue isn’t pure enough for you?


If you shift the overton window into pure fascism in the process, no it is not progress.


If you insist on ideological purity even when it will obstruct a tangible victory, then YOU have actually let the fascists win.

How can you not see that? Your pure argument fails, their fascist law stands, the fascists win. Or you make an argument that is distasteful, get the law overturned, and give real, tangible benefits to the people who need it, therefore the fascists DID NOT WIN.

I’m not fighting a philosophical war; I’m fighting a REAL one.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • rosin
  • Backrooms
  • ngwrru68w68
  • magazineikmin
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • everett
  • Durango
  • ethstaker
  • khanakhh
  • kavyap
  • GTA5RPClips
  • thenastyranch
  • DreamBathrooms
  • provamag3
  • mdbf
  • osvaldo12
  • InstantRegret
  • normalnudes
  • tacticalgear
  • cubers
  • hgfsjryuu7
  • cisconetworking
  • tester
  • anitta
  • modclub
  • Leos
  • JUstTest
  • All magazines