I'm not pro-murdering babies.
I'm pro-Becky who found out at her 20 week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs.
More from Health
🚨New lockdown regulations just published, in force tomorrow
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 3) and (All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
https://t.co/L5jwlTDaIE
(Thread)
These are not a new set of regulations: they are amendments an old set of regulations
Which we thought were gone! But they are back
Welcome back No.3 regulations
A quick thing before we continue!
I have been analysing these laws for free for 9 months now - if you want to say thanks and have a few £ to spare please give to my @LawCentres fundraiser
They give free legal advice to people who need it
They also amend the All Tiers regulations
Oh god it's all amendments by paragraph references
Basically all of England now in Tier 4 and Tier 4 is amended but not by a huge amount
This really is a terrible way to make laws on the fly - who can possibly understand it?!
So, to explain, you need 2 documents open if you want to understand what is going on:
All Tiers regulations (Tiers 1-4, 2 December as amended) https://t.co/IraPQ112ak
And amendments https://t.co/L5jwlTDaIE
No sensible way of doing except by track changes, on it now, back soon
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 3) and (All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
https://t.co/L5jwlTDaIE
(Thread)
These are not a new set of regulations: they are amendments an old set of regulations
Which we thought were gone! But they are back
Welcome back No.3 regulations
A quick thing before we continue!
I have been analysing these laws for free for 9 months now - if you want to say thanks and have a few £ to spare please give to my @LawCentres fundraiser
They give free legal advice to people who need it
They also amend the All Tiers regulations
Oh god it's all amendments by paragraph references
Basically all of England now in Tier 4 and Tier 4 is amended but not by a huge amount
This really is a terrible way to make laws on the fly - who can possibly understand it?!
So, to explain, you need 2 documents open if you want to understand what is going on:
All Tiers regulations (Tiers 1-4, 2 December as amended) https://t.co/IraPQ112ak
And amendments https://t.co/L5jwlTDaIE
No sensible way of doing except by track changes, on it now, back soon
This is the $1mln question still without an answer: why were these workers cleaning bat guano from that abandoned mine?
Surprisingly we simply don't know.
China would have all interest in clarifying that point if for instance they were prospecting or selling guano. It did not.
What we know is that EcoHealth + WIV were sampling bat sites in the vicinity at the exact time of the workers being in that mine.
#DRASTIC wrote about this and about other oddities in the official story:
Maybe it's just one of these coincidences.
Then it gets interesting: about a year after the miners death, Olival & Epstein from EcoHealth Alliance co-authored a paper about the coronavirus risk infection from bat guano collection.
No mention of the
That paper oddly used some old bat samples collected by DARPA in 2006/7 at the famous Thai bat cave.
It never mentioned that the Thai monks have been doing this every Sunday for many many years without infection.
But most interestingly it never mentioned the Mojiang mine accident, even if the perfect timing and recycling of old DARPA bat samples seem to point to a likely knowledge of it.
Anyway, the idea was to ask for more money, as you correctly
Surprisingly we simply don't know.
China would have all interest in clarifying that point if for instance they were prospecting or selling guano. It did not.
The miners were tasked with removing bat feces. AFAIK it hasn't been established why they were doing this. Given that EcoHealth was collecting bat fecal samples in the same province around the same time, is it possible these miners were actually collecting guano for EcoHealth?
— The Great Gumbino (@gumby4christ) February 15, 2021
What we know is that EcoHealth + WIV were sampling bat sites in the vicinity at the exact time of the workers being in that mine.
#DRASTIC wrote about this and about other oddities in the official story:
Maybe it's just one of these coincidences.
Then it gets interesting: about a year after the miners death, Olival & Epstein from EcoHealth Alliance co-authored a paper about the coronavirus risk infection from bat guano collection.
No mention of the
That paper oddly used some old bat samples collected by DARPA in 2006/7 at the famous Thai bat cave.
It never mentioned that the Thai monks have been doing this every Sunday for many many years without infection.
But most interestingly it never mentioned the Mojiang mine accident, even if the perfect timing and recycling of old DARPA bat samples seem to point to a likely knowledge of it.
Anyway, the idea was to ask for more money, as you correctly
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.
