I WAS SO HOPING THAT WAS THE REACTION GIF AND IT WAS, PERFECT
OPEN UP THIS FUCKING PIT
Are Artificial Sweeteners Harmful?
Our episode on Organic food was a hit, but lots of you had questions in the comments asking about the safety of artificial sweeteners. We live to serve, so this week’s episode is about the research in that area. These chemicals get a bad rap, but you might be surprised by what you learn by watching. Send your hate tweets to Aaron. He’s used to them.
Improper grammar can be so limiting. http://ift.tt/1jWVbAM
But wait… This sentence doesn’t make any sense, unless you are addressing a person named Commas and telling them to “use them”.
Commas; use them correctly.
remember guys, you’re not allowed to know what sexuality you are as an adolescent unless it is straight.
x-men: first class aka x-men: make everyone young and american and while we’re at it let’s have the only non-white female be a sex worker and then make her evil oh also we’re setting this movie in the 1960s and never mentioning race relations or the US government’s policy on race and we’re killing the black guy also hope no one notices the GAPING PLOT HOLES IN THIS FRANCHISE HOLOCAUST REFERENCE NAZIS BA-BAM
…Mystique was a sex worker? Sigh. Will continue to not watch that movie, then.
Angel Salvadore is working as a stripper in the movie.
Ready to be depressed?
While some false beliefs, such as astrology, are fairly harmless, parents who believe falsely that vaccination is dangerous or unnecessary for children present a real public health hazard. That’s why researchers, publishing in Pediatrics, decided to test four different pro-vaccination messages on a group of parents with children under 18 and with a variety of attitudes about vaccination to see which one was most persuasive in persuading them to vaccinate. As Chris Mooney reports for Mother Jones, the results are utterly demoralizing: Nothing made anti-vaccination parents more amendable to vaccinating their kids. At best, the messages didn’t move the needle one way or another, but it seems the harder you try to persuade a vaccination denialist to see the light, the more stubborn they get about not vaccinating their kids.
Brendan Nyhan of Dartmouth College and his colleagues tested four different messages on parents. Mooney describes them:The first message, dubbed “Autism correction,” was a factual, science-heavy correction of false claims that the MMR vaccine causes autism, assuring parents that the vaccine is “safe and effective” and citing multiple studies that disprove claims of an autism link. The second message, dubbed “Disease risks,” simply listed the many risks of contracting the measles, the mumps, or rubella, describing the nasty complications that can come with these diseases. The third message, dubbed “Disease narrative,” told a “true story” about a 10-month-old whose temperature shot up to a terrifying 106 degrees after he contracted measles from another child in a pediatrician’s waiting room.
The fourth message was to show parents pictures of children afflicted with the diseases they could get without vaccination. Both the pictures and the horrible story about measles increased parental fears about vaccinations. Researchers don’t know why but theorize that the problem might be that invoking fears of sick children just makes parents more fearful in general of all risks, whether real or imagined. The cooler, more distant “disease risks” message didn’t change parents’ minds either way, but what was most startling was what happened with the message correcting misinformation on autism:As for “Autism correction,” it actually worked, among survey respondents as a whole, to somewhat reduce belief in the falsehood that vaccines cause autism. But at the same time, the message had an unexpected negative effect, decreasing the percentage of parents saying that they would be likely to vaccinate their children.
In other words, learning that they were wrong to believe that vaccines were dangerous to their kids made vaccine-hostile parents more, not less likely to reject vaccination. Mooney calls this the “backfire effect,” but feel free to regard it as stubborn, childish defensiveness, if you’d rather. If you produce evidence that vaccination fears about autism are misplaced, anti-vaccination parents don’t apologize and slink off to get their kids vaccinated. No, according to this study, they tend to double down.
This reaction, where people become more assured of their stupid opinions when confronted with factual or scientific evidence proving them wrong, has been demonstrated in similar studies time and time again. (This is why arguing with your Facebook friends who watch Fox News will only bring you migraines.) Mooney suggests that state governments should respond by making it harder to opt out of vaccinations. That would be helpful, but there’s also some preliminary research from the James Randi Educational Foundation and Women Thinking Inc. that shows that re-framing the argument in positive terms can help. When parents were prompted to think of vaccination as one of the steps you take to protect a child, like buckling a seat belt, they were more invested in doing it than if they were reminded that vaccine denialists are spouting misinformation. Hopefully, future research into pro-vaccination messaging, as opposed to just anti-anti-vaccination messaging, will provide further insight.
Umbilical cord blood is a baby’s life blood until birth. It contains many wonderfully precious cells, like stem cells, red blood cells and white blood cells (including cancer-fighting T-cells) to help fight disease and infection.
Yet common practice is to quickly cut off this source of valuable cells at the moment of birth. Three reasons for this are:
**Caregivers might believe that there is little or no benefit in delayed cord clamping, despite numerous studies and recommendations
**Caregivers who might believe that delayed cord clamping can cause complications, despite numerous studies and recommendations.
**Carers being in a hurry to finish the birth. Giving birth ‘in the system’ plays a big part in whether or not the medical caregiver or establishment you deliver with wants to hurry up the process and get onto the next birth.
Studies like this one (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7612098/) published in 1995 have shown that infants who have delayed cord clamping end up with a whopping 32% more blood volume than infants who have immediate cord clamping.
“Delayed cord clamping clearly increases fetal haemoglobin, blood volume and iron stores. The evidence supports a clinical benefit of delayed clamping. There’s really no strong evidence against delaying the cord clamping. When we talk about interventions in medicine, really, the burden of evidence is on the intervention. People say, “Delayed cord clamping, you can’t prove that that’s an intervention that helps.” I’m like, “Oh, no, no, no, no! Delayed cord clamping is what we evolved to do. We evolved to get the blood that’s in the placenta. I don’t have to prove that that’s right. You need to prove to me that phlebotomizing the baby of forty percent of its blood volume is right.” — Dr. Nicholas Fogelson (You can watch his full presentation to other medical professionals at the end of this article).
In 2010, yet another study on the benefits of delayed cord clamping was published, which you can read here (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/189803.php). They stated that early clamping may interfere with ’nature’s first stem cell transplant’. A 2013 study on delayed cord clamping has just been published in the Cochrane database, again supporting the practice of delayed cord clamping. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004074.pub3/abstract)
There has been an increasing number of studies published with regards to the timing of cord clamping, including a 16-month study which was published in 2006. You can read more about that study here (http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=7729). It was conducted at Hospital de Gineco Obstetrica in Mexico City, where over 350 mother/baby pairs were part of the study.
This study, consistently with many others, has provided solid evidence of the benefits of delayed clamping. The main benefits being:
**Increased levels of iron
**Lower risk of anaemia
**Fewer incidences of intraventricular haemorrhage.
A two-minute delay in cord clamping increased the child’s iron reserve by 27-47 mg of iron, which is equivalent to 1-2 months of an infant’s iron requirements. This could help to prevent iron deficiency from developing before 6 months of age. A study from the University of Granada (2007) has similar findings.
While delayed clamping is beneficial for babies across the board, the studies found that the impact of delayed clamping is particularly significant for infants who have low birth weights, are born to iron-deficient mothers, are premature, or those who do not receive baby formula or iron-fortified milk. Given that mother nature provided breastmilk for babies and not formulas, you would think she also supplied that valuable source of iron for a reason too. You may have noticed that formula companies promote iron deficiency rates to sell their products.
“To understand exactly why there are no real benefits to delayed cord clamping, lets do a thought experiment. Let’s pretend that we gave half of newborns a blood transfusion in the immediate aftermath of birth to test the hypothesis that an immediate blood transfusion benefits normal babies. If we measure the same things that the Cochrane investigators measured, we would get exactly the same results. The only “benefit” would be slightly higher iron levels, and even that isn’t guaranteed since the authors are not sure that result is real.
Would we conclude that routine newborn transfusions offered enough benefits to recommend them? Of course we wouldn’t, since it offers no clinical benefits at all.
The exact same thing can be said about delayed cord clamping.
So what’s this paper really about? This paper is about midwives and natural childbirth advocates dissing obstetricians. Indeed the paper was written by midwives who are desperate to find yet another reason to criticize obstetricians. Delayed cord clamping is just a reaction to the fact that obstetricians have traditionally clamped the cord early. As the chart clearly shows (no chart was included in the study since it would have graphically displayed the lack of benefit), there is no clinical benefit to delayed cord clamping and only a difference in laboratory values at 3-6 months that has no bearing on health and may not be really anyway.
Fortunately, delayed cord clamping appears to have no harms, so there’s no reason that we can see (at the moment) not to do it if parents request it. By that reasoning, we could give every newborn a blood transfusion if their parents request it.”
One of the reasons why I don’t think men should be in the feminist movement
Cate Blanchett’s acceptance speech may have read feminist, and her wording was beautiful, except her thanking of Woody Allen (whose adopted daughter Dylan Farrow has come out publicly about her abuse at the hand of her proto-father) and intentional framing of him as a feminist film maker, that everyone seems so fast to ignore in congratulating her for ‘calling out the Academy.’
Blue Jasmine saw no other nominations or awards for a reason, and her acting deserved all it won, but Cate Blanchett chose to reinforce an industry that values male filmmakers and celebrities like Woody Allen over the children and young women they abuse and violate. That doesn’t sound very feminist to me.
White people are so predictable. They say not to make things about race but when Lupita wins over JLaw they resort to using racism and transmisogyny to put her down.
Even people from Lawrence’s own movie agreed Nyong’o was an amazing actress in her own right. But they feel cheated that their white favorite did not win.
Instead of graciously accepting the loss as they do every year with, say Leonardo DiCaprio for example, these white people must go into great length about how unworthy, ugly and niggerish Lupita is.
This is sad. But it also proves the long standing point that absolutely no one tried to make every conversation about race. We are forced to in the face of absolute bigotry.
everyone on my dash making posts along the lines of “We shouldn’t pit two women, who work in a sexist industry, against each other!”
appears to be white.
- Humans really do have auras
- Humans have organs to sense energy
- We inherit memories from our anscestors
- Meditation actually repairs telomeres in DNA thereby slowing aging
- Compassion extends life
- Love is more than just an emotion
- Billions of other universes exist and each of us my inhabit our own unique universe
- Meditation speeds healing
Wait what? Where! How??
i’m sorry did you mean
- poorly-phrased sensationalist headlines that completely fall apart when you actually read the goddamn primary article
What kon said, yeah. Like, okay, the billion-universes thing is sorta right because of many-worlds quantum physics, although most of those billions of universes are the same as ours with tiny differences in the average distributions of… particle… science… thingy, it’s complicated. And none of those universes get to do anything that technically defies physics.
Auras is no, “organs that sense energy” are we talking about like, eyes that can pick up light energy? I don’t know what hippie definition of “energy” is being used. Memory inheritance is no, meditation is a pretty useful thinking aid but it doesn’t do any healing, love is… well, they conveniently don’t make any claims about what else they think love is, and… I dunno about the compassion thing, but that’s not exactly a hypothesis you can design a test for. I’d imagine there are plenty of confounders that correlate with something as poorly defined as “compassion”.
come on man get on the cynicism train, you’ll be disappointed a whole lot less
come on man
what does “love is more than just an emotion” even mean? why would you want love to be more than an emotion? this is one of those “why do you even want life to have meaning” things again?
also like… the fact that stress is shitty for your body is Not News. The fact that meditation decreases stress is Not News Either. AFAIK the telomere thing hasn’t been studied in more than a small pilot study, but I wouldn’t be super-surprised if it turned out to be true (or false, for that matter). I don’t know why people think that mind-body interactions are ~oooooh spooky new age mystical magic~. Brains are a bodily organ? If they aren’t working as well as they could this affects other bodily organs? This shouldn’t be more surprising than the fact that when your liver isn’t working so well other bodily organs get messed up?
Sometimes the wacky mystics with bullshit explanations for why things work have things that actually work (if not for the reasons they say). This does not actually mean y’all are right about auras.
…also the “science proves humans have auras” thing is actually “science proves some people have synaesthasia.”