4 ms·

Every major nutrition and dietetics association agrees unanimously that a vegan diet is healthy for all stages of life including pregnancy. https://youaretheir

Every major nutrition and dietetics association agrees unanimously that a vegan diet is healthy for all stages of life including pregnancy. https://youaretheirvoice.com/pages/the-clear-consensus https://youaretheirvoice.com/pages/the-clear-consensus So you’re simply not correct that we need animals to thrive.

kkfx 5y ago
Every scientific associations in the recent past have said that sardines, blue fish are the proteins of the sea, we need to eat them, few years later the same say that are full of poisons. Few years earlier eggs are the best nutrient we have, few years after eggs are hard to digest, full of "cholesterol" [1]. Long story short "dietetics association" means mostly lobbyist associations on sale to the best offer. Oh, BTW just a bit more time ago most MDs agreed that radioactivity is good for health and they try to determine the best dosage of radium to be put on skin and eat for various purposes like fight baldness or fortifying the fetus in pregnant women. Years later most MDs agree that smoking tobacco is very good for many things, especially useful to fight flu and cold. Few years later we discover that that's was an Eduard Bernays advertising campaign: he created a medical journal that start publishing real studies and he distribute it between medical offices and universities, then he start injecting few false but false but credible studies that praised tobacco smoke. In little time many real researchers have follow claiming other discovering. I can't really know for sure why there is a push against meat, what I know for sure is that's not a matter of fighting climate change, nor adapting to it. Another thing I know for sure is that ultra-processed foods, like foods based on insects and grains, cost very little for their producers on scale, and can be sold with a very big margin and are complex enough to make them taste good that no small player can compete. Meanwhile I know how sales of statins climbs in the recent years and who profit for them. [1] witch is a common world and a completely true and false statement since LDL is digested thanks to all animal proteins and pushed up by starchy foods.
- sweetheart 5y ago
  If credible sources from experts don’t matter to you, then I don’t think there is any way you’ll be convicted of anything. Doesn’t sound like you’re actually open to discussion.
  - kkfx 5y ago
    I simply call "credible sources from experts" other things. In the recent past we read that blue fish are "the protein of the sea, eat much" then "blue fish collect all sort of pollutants, avoid it". We see "eggs are a godsend for health, eat them at minimum one per day" and then again "eggs are 'cholesterol' avoid them, limiting them as possible" etc. In an a bit far past (not that far) doctors recommend smoking as a cure-all for common winter disease, "it kills all the germs of the season", years after we discover that was just the result of an Eduard Bernays campaign for the American Tobacco Company: he create a new scientific journal, collecting real studies and sending it for free "to advertise the new journal", it became popular thanks to easy access and low entry barrier for publishing, then he inject some credible studies that prize smoking. MANY OTHERS researchers have followed them, taking them as true, and amplifying the echo. Long story short, I have enough basic scientific knowledge to discern and to remember that Science is not based on blind trusting some "expert" but always demand why. Take meat for instance, common voices, dressed as scientific truth say that's bad for climate change because demand much water and produce much methane. Now try to see how much methane we estimate released into the atmosphere due to arctic heating and how much CO₂ is annually release by world fires. Clearly methane from cows does not change the climate. Now water: yes, livestock drink, clean water, and release urine, witch is not clean water. BUT it's still water. If treated to produce natural (ammonia-based) fertilizers we desperately need, the outcome is clean water, because we do not "consume" it, it's just a cycle. So again that statement is true if we just see a small part of the picture, false otherwise. That's is, I have collect many examples of false beliefs considered established Science that aren't science at all. Of course I do know the ancient pro-smoking campaign was an advertisement campaign because that's history, we have documents, what's up today is "present" documents are not public, at least not much and not yet, but while we can't know "the real truth" we can still try to discern what's probably true from what's probably false, choosing not to trust any guru or formal association, privately founded just to note, but using actual Scientific method, demanding evidence, elaborating it.

kkfx 5y ago

Every scientific associations in the recent past have said that sardines, blue fish are the proteins of the sea, we need to eat them, few years later the same say that are full of poisons. Few years earlier eggs are the best nutrient we have, few years after eggs are hard to digest, full of "cholesterol" [1]. Long story short "dietetics association" means mostly lobbyist associations on sale to the best offer. Oh, BTW just a bit more time ago most MDs agreed that radioactivity is good for health and they try to determine the best dosage of radium to be put on skin and eat for various purposes like fight baldness or fortifying the fetus in pregnant women. Years later most MDs agree that smoking tobacco is very good for many things, especially useful to fight flu and cold. Few years later we discover that that's was an Eduard Bernays advertising campaign: he created a medical journal that start publishing real studies and he distribute it between medical offices and universities, then he start injecting few false but false but credible studies that praised tobacco smoke. In little time many real researchers have follow claiming other discovering. I can't really know for sure why there is a push against meat, what I know for sure is that's not a matter of fighting climate change, nor adapting to it. Another thing I know for sure is that ultra-processed foods, like foods based on insects and grains, cost very little for their producers on scale, and can be sold with a very big margin and are complex enough to make them taste good that no small player can compete. Meanwhile I know how sales of statins climbs in the recent years and who profit for them. [1] witch is a common world and a completely true and false statement since LDL is digested thanks to all animal proteins and pushed up by starchy foods.

sweetheart 5y ago
If credible sources from experts don’t matter to you, then I don’t think there is any way you’ll be convicted of anything. Doesn’t sound like you’re actually open to discussion.
- kkfx 5y ago
  I simply call "credible sources from experts" other things. In the recent past we read that blue fish are "the protein of the sea, eat much" then "blue fish collect all sort of pollutants, avoid it". We see "eggs are a godsend for health, eat them at minimum one per day" and then again "eggs are 'cholesterol' avoid them, limiting them as possible" etc. In an a bit far past (not that far) doctors recommend smoking as a cure-all for common winter disease, "it kills all the germs of the season", years after we discover that was just the result of an Eduard Bernays campaign for the American Tobacco Company: he create a new scientific journal, collecting real studies and sending it for free "to advertise the new journal", it became popular thanks to easy access and low entry barrier for publishing, then he inject some credible studies that prize smoking. MANY OTHERS researchers have followed them, taking them as true, and amplifying the echo. Long story short, I have enough basic scientific knowledge to discern and to remember that Science is not based on blind trusting some "expert" but always demand why. Take meat for instance, common voices, dressed as scientific truth say that's bad for climate change because demand much water and produce much methane. Now try to see how much methane we estimate released into the atmosphere due to arctic heating and how much CO₂ is annually release by world fires. Clearly methane from cows does not change the climate. Now water: yes, livestock drink, clean water, and release urine, witch is not clean water. BUT it's still water. If treated to produce natural (ammonia-based) fertilizers we desperately need, the outcome is clean water, because we do not "consume" it, it's just a cycle. So again that statement is true if we just see a small part of the picture, false otherwise. That's is, I have collect many examples of false beliefs considered established Science that aren't science at all. Of course I do know the ancient pro-smoking campaign was an advertisement campaign because that's history, we have documents, what's up today is "present" documents are not public, at least not much and not yet, but while we can't know "the real truth" we can still try to discern what's probably true from what's probably false, choosing not to trust any guru or formal association, privately founded just to note, but using actual Scientific method, demanding evidence, elaborating it.