improv's comments

>It's a problem when "philosophers" opine on physics without understanding physics very well

It's also a problem when physicists make assertions of fact on consciousness and psychology without understanding consciousness or psychology very well (which no one does).

Relatedly, there is evidence that ketogenic (which are fasting mimicking) diets can be helpful:

https://www.ucdavis.edu/health/news/keto-diet-prevents-early....

https://ncats.nih.gov/news-events/news/ketogenic-diet-alzhei...

It's not so much "low carb" as it is avoiding the sugar junkie culture that pervades the Standard American Diet.

Keto can be an effective acute intervention against type 2 diabetes, but then one might add carbs back in to a reasonable level, but not the poisonous level of the Standard American Diet.

See also: the American Heart Association.

At a macroeconomic level - disease yields substantially higher profits than health in our current model.

>We need to have limits on what we allow our brain to process the same way we do for our body with ultra-processed foods by avoiding fast food restaurants

This is a great analogy.

Fast information dis-eases our minds as fast food diseases our body.

Couldn't think of a more efficient way to manufacture ADHD

Ketones have been shown to reduce oxidative stress and inflammation in the brain. We've known for a hundred years that it can be effective at treating epilepsy, and increasing evidence is mounting that it can be helpful for Alzheimer's, mental illness, and many other diseases.

It's weird that there is such a stigma surrounding keto.

Yes, early humans were likely carrion feeders among other dietary strategies. Archaeological and anthropological evidence suggests that before developing tools and techniques for hunting, early hominins would have scavenged carcasses left by predators. This behavior would have allowed them to access a high-quality source of nutrients like protein and fat, which are crucial for brain development.

The use of tools made from stones to break open bones for marrow and to possibly butcher animals suggests that early humans exploited carcasses that they found or scavenged from other predators' kills. Marrow and brain tissue, which could be accessed by breaking open bones and skulls, are highly nutritious and would have been valuable food sources for early humans.

Over time, as hominins developed more sophisticated tools and techniques, they likely became more efficient hunters, gradually shifting from scavenging to actively hunting for their food. However, the practice of scavenging would have played a critical role in the dietary habits of early human ancestors and contributed to their evolutionary success.

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/64/5/394/2754213

>carion, most raw meat (if we ate what dogs ate, we'd have constant stomach issues...)

Humans have extremely acidic stomach acid (1.5 - 3.5 pH), close to that of vultures and dogs (1 - 2 pH).

Early humans and their predecessors, were very likely (at least partially) carrion feeders, and consumed raw meat for millions of years before they started cooking.

>That's only because we have no way to measure it, not because it's not also a physical problem

People say the same thing about God.

Measurability is a fundamental requirement of science for something to be tested or studied systematically.

Diabetes is a biological disease which can be objectively proven and diagnosed based on biological tests.

There are no objective biological diagnostic criteria for anything in the DSM.

"psychiatric diagnosis still relies exclusively on fallible subjective judgments rather than objective biological tests" -Allen Frances, The New Crisis of Confidence in Psychiatric Diagnosis

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Frances

As mentioned by light_hue_1:

> Effect sizes were small (largest peak d, 0.15).

It also doesn't look like they considered what effect a daily prescription of ADHD medications might have on brain connections versus the inherent condition itself.

Why is Monsanto continuing to make such unscientific claims then?

>while completely ignoring the effects of NOT making a change

The completely hypothetical effects of not making a change in just one area of virology research which is highly criticized by many in the scientific community.

It's hilariously absurd to compare people who don't want a dual use bioweapons research facility in their neighborhood to NIMBYism.

NIMBYism != People being concerned about their neighbors possessing weapons of mass destruction/super viruses capable of killing them and millions/billions of other people.

There are plenty of people who work in remote locations like Antarctica, and few if any of them make such grandiose claims as these virologists who think their work will save millions of lives.

If they can't be bothered to work in a safely remote location then they don't actually believe in their work and are blind to the risks and history of lab leaks.

George Carlin - Saving the Planet

https://youtu.be/7W33HRc1A6c?si=-EGHs1UFrx3s3io5

Why do you think the jury ruled the way it did then?

>The thinking is that a disproportionate amount of industrial agriculture is done in support of cattle farming

Why is that the thinking?

I've read that 86% of cattle feed is byproducts from industrial agriculture that is inedible to humans.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sacredcow.info/blog/qz6pi6c...

Indeed, there are many who make so much noise made about how unsustainable and environmentally toxic industrial cattle farming is, but then it's crickets when it comes to how unsustainable and environmentally toxic industrial agriculture is.