Similar replies happened when there was the whole "not clapping" article regarding Cambridge.
They're so quick to label disabilities as not real disabilities.
Me: Made a thread about how people don't understand hyperacusis and give advice that obviously I've already tried.
This person only a few tweets into the thread:
Similar replies happened when there was the whole "not clapping" article regarding Cambridge.
They're so quick to label disabilities as not real disabilities.
Most people don't talk about their hyperacusis because if they do, people respond like this. So most of the time, honestly it's easier to say nothing
2. Having this feature helps many more people - people with PTSD, misophonia, HoH, etc.
3. Abled people would use this to reduce awful sounds.
3. People with "rare" disabilities still matter.
More from Health
I applaud the #EUCancerPlan *BUT* caution: putting #meat 🥩 (a nourishing, evolutionary food) in the same box as 🚬 to solve a contemporary health challenge, would be basing policy on assumptions rather than robust data.
#FollowTheScience yes, but not just part of it!
THREAD👇
1/ Granted, some studies have pointed to ASSOCIATIONS of HIGH intake of red & processed meats with (slightly!) increased colorectal cancer incidence. Also, @WHO/IARC is often mentioned in support (usually hyperbolically so).
But, let’s have a closer look at all this! 🔍
2/ First, meat being “associated” with cancer is very different from stating that meat CAUSES cancer.
Unwarranted use of causal language is widespread in nutritional sciences, posing a systemic problem & undermining credibility.
3/ That’s because observational data are CONFOUNDED (even after statistical adjustment).
Healthy user bias is a major problem. Healthy middle classes are TOLD to eat less red meat (due to historical rather than rational reasons, cf link). So, they
4/ What’s captured here is sociology, not physiology.
Health-focused Westerners eat less red meat, whereas those who don’t adhere to dietary advice tend to have unhealthier lifestyles.
That tells us very little about meat AS SUCH being responsible for disease.
#FollowTheScience yes, but not just part of it!
THREAD👇
\U0001f534LIVE \U0001f4c5Today \u23f012:00 CET
— EU_HEALTH - #EUCancerPlan (@EU_Health) February 3, 2021
We are presenting today the #EUCancerPlan as part of a strong \U0001f1ea\U0001f1fa#HealthUnion
Follow the presentation live here: https://t.co/Cr8ATvzNkg#WorldCancerDay pic.twitter.com/zdByuklWV6
1/ Granted, some studies have pointed to ASSOCIATIONS of HIGH intake of red & processed meats with (slightly!) increased colorectal cancer incidence. Also, @WHO/IARC is often mentioned in support (usually hyperbolically so).
But, let’s have a closer look at all this! 🔍
2/ First, meat being “associated” with cancer is very different from stating that meat CAUSES cancer.
Unwarranted use of causal language is widespread in nutritional sciences, posing a systemic problem & undermining credibility.
3/ That’s because observational data are CONFOUNDED (even after statistical adjustment).
Healthy user bias is a major problem. Healthy middle classes are TOLD to eat less red meat (due to historical rather than rational reasons, cf link). So, they
4/ What’s captured here is sociology, not physiology.
Health-focused Westerners eat less red meat, whereas those who don’t adhere to dietary advice tend to have unhealthier lifestyles.
That tells us very little about meat AS SUCH being responsible for disease.
