Regional differences are important & due to very large variations in feed digestibility, slaughter age & weight, climate conditions, management, sociocultural factors, & nutrient security.
Are #vegan diets really the 'single biggest way' to reduce our carbon footprints & environmental impact on the planet? We argue that this is a highly misleading claim & that the evaluation of dietary change comes with a lot of context & complexity
🧐📑➡️: https://t.co/kYGeTpy8UP
Regional differences are important & due to very large variations in feed digestibility, slaughter age & weight, climate conditions, management, sociocultural factors, & nutrient security.
A lot of margin is left for higher productivity, feed strategies, veterinary care, smart use of manure, & herd management. A reduction of waste, the re-use of meat-processing by-products, & the valorization of biogas also hold potential.
For Westerners, the effect isn't only small on a yearly basis (1-6%) but especially so on a lifetime of emissions. Some vegetarians may even have higher impacts than some omnivores. Mock products do not solve the issue.
Taking a flight, for instance, easily offsets one or more years of veganism. Yet, cars, tourism, pets, & smart phones receive little attention in comparison to the dietary quick-fix claims.
The higher carbon footprint of nutrient-dense foods can (partially) be offset by a higher nutritional value. Policies that would reduce GHG emissions but are nutritionally harmful or incomplete should be dismissed.
Given that proper grassland management improves soil carbon stocks, offsetting of emissions can be substantial (& sometimes complete). This is commonly overlooked in conventional assessments & GHG inventory reports.
Both are good, but potential is limited. Rewilding would replace livestock with other methanogenic animals. Massive afforestation overlooks practical constraints & is not necessarily more effective than grasslands.
Beef is excessively blamed. Yet, methane from ruminants is part of a biological cycle which doesn't bring in new carbon or add to warming, provided there is no increase in emissions/herd size. It should be considered as such.
LCAs usually do not factor in non-edible products & services associated with livestock production (eg hides, wool, fats, organs, milk, bone, serum, manure, draught power, etc), which would further lower the carbon footprint of animal foods.
More background, details & examples for each of the above-listed 8 points can be found on this website (backed up with links to scientific studies): https://t.co/kYGeTpy8UP
More from Health
1/16
Why do B12 and folate deficiencies lead to HUGE red blood cells?
And, if the issue is DNA synthesis, why are red blood cells (which don't have DNA) the key cell line affected?
For answers, we'll have to go back a few billion years.
2/
RNA came first. Then, ~3-4 billion years ago, DNA emerged.
Among their differences:
🔹RNA contains uracil
🔹DNA contains thymine
But why does DNA contains thymine (T) instead of uracil (U)?
https://t.co/XlxT6cLLXg
3/
🔑Cytosine (C) can undergo spontaneous deamination to uracil (U).
In the RNA world, this meant that U could appear intensionally or unintentionally. This is clearly problematic. How can you repair RNA when you can't tell if something is an error?
https://t.co/bIZGviHBUc
4/
DNA's use of T instead of U means that spontaneous C → U deamination can be corrected without worry that an intentional U is being removed.
DNA requires greater stability than RNA so the transition to a thymine-based structure was beneficial.
https://t.co/bIZGviHBUc
5/
Let's return to megaloblastic anemia secondary to B12 or folate deficiency.
When either is severely deficient deoxythymidine monophosphate (dTMP*) production is hindered. With less dTMP, DNA synthesis is abnormal.
[*Note: thymine is the base in dTMP]
https://t.co/AnDUtKkbZh
Why do B12 and folate deficiencies lead to HUGE red blood cells?
And, if the issue is DNA synthesis, why are red blood cells (which don't have DNA) the key cell line affected?
For answers, we'll have to go back a few billion years.
2/
RNA came first. Then, ~3-4 billion years ago, DNA emerged.
Among their differences:
🔹RNA contains uracil
🔹DNA contains thymine
But why does DNA contains thymine (T) instead of uracil (U)?
https://t.co/XlxT6cLLXg
3/
🔑Cytosine (C) can undergo spontaneous deamination to uracil (U).
In the RNA world, this meant that U could appear intensionally or unintentionally. This is clearly problematic. How can you repair RNA when you can't tell if something is an error?
https://t.co/bIZGviHBUc
4/
DNA's use of T instead of U means that spontaneous C → U deamination can be corrected without worry that an intentional U is being removed.
DNA requires greater stability than RNA so the transition to a thymine-based structure was beneficial.
https://t.co/bIZGviHBUc
5/
Let's return to megaloblastic anemia secondary to B12 or folate deficiency.
When either is severely deficient deoxythymidine monophosphate (dTMP*) production is hindered. With less dTMP, DNA synthesis is abnormal.
[*Note: thymine is the base in dTMP]
https://t.co/AnDUtKkbZh
I think @SamAdlerBell in his quest to be the contrarian on Fauci gets several things wrong here. 1/
First, the failure last year actually was driven by the White House, the #Trump inner circle. Watch what's happening now, the US' scientific and public health infrastructure is creaking back to life. 2/
I think Sam underestimates the decimation of many of our health agencies over the past four years and the establishment of ideological control over them during the pandemic. 3/
I also am puzzled why Tony gets the blame for not speaking up, etc. Robert Redfield, Brett Giroir, Deb Birx, Jerome Adams, Alex Azar all could have done the same. 4/
Several of these people Bob Redfield, Brett Giroir, Alex Azar were led by craven ambition, Jerome Adams by cowardice, but I do think Deb Birx and Tony tried as institutionalists, insiders to make a difference. 5/
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) January 30, 2021
First, the failure last year actually was driven by the White House, the #Trump inner circle. Watch what's happening now, the US' scientific and public health infrastructure is creaking back to life. 2/
I think Sam underestimates the decimation of many of our health agencies over the past four years and the establishment of ideological control over them during the pandemic. 3/
I also am puzzled why Tony gets the blame for not speaking up, etc. Robert Redfield, Brett Giroir, Deb Birx, Jerome Adams, Alex Azar all could have done the same. 4/
Several of these people Bob Redfield, Brett Giroir, Alex Azar were led by craven ambition, Jerome Adams by cowardice, but I do think Deb Birx and Tony tried as institutionalists, insiders to make a difference. 5/
Some thoughts on this: Firstly, it might be personal preference, but I am not keen on this kind of campaign as I feel like it trivialises cancer. Sometimes the serious message gets lost because people are sharing pics of cats or whatever and the important context is gone.
More importantly, the statistic being used in the campaign is misleading. It says 57% of women put off cervical screening if they can't get waxed. But on further investigation, that's not accurate.
The page here goes on to say "57% of women who regularly have their pubic hair professionally removed would put off attending their cervical screening appointment if they hadn’t been able to visit a beauty salon."
So the 57% represents a concern not across the whole population of women, but only those who regularly get waxed. So how big of an issue is this across the whole population? And what else is stopping people getting smears?
I think campaigns for cancer screening are really tricky because there is so much nuance that often doesn't fit into a catchy headline or hashtag. It's certainly not easy and is part of a bigger conversation.
It\u2019s #CervicalCancerPreventionWeek \U0001f499
— myGP (@myGPapp) January 18, 2021
Here\u2019s how you can help to raise awareness:
\U0001f431 Share an image of the cat that best reflects your undercarriage/flower/bits (technical term vulva!) current look.
#\u20e3Use the Hashtag #myCat.
\U0001f46dTell and tag your friends to let them know. pic.twitter.com/8aHf96ynjT
More importantly, the statistic being used in the campaign is misleading. It says 57% of women put off cervical screening if they can't get waxed. But on further investigation, that's not accurate.
The page here goes on to say "57% of women who regularly have their pubic hair professionally removed would put off attending their cervical screening appointment if they hadn’t been able to visit a beauty salon."
So the 57% represents a concern not across the whole population of women, but only those who regularly get waxed. So how big of an issue is this across the whole population? And what else is stopping people getting smears?
I think campaigns for cancer screening are really tricky because there is so much nuance that often doesn't fit into a catchy headline or hashtag. It's certainly not easy and is part of a bigger conversation.
You May Also Like
Trading view scanner process -
1 - open trading view in your browser and select stock scanner in left corner down side .
2 - touch the percentage% gain change ( and u can see higest gainer of today)
3. Then, start with 6% gainer to 20% gainer and look charts of everyone in daily Timeframe . (For fno selection u can choose 1% to 4% )
4. Then manually select the stocks which are going to give all time high BO or 52 high BO or already given.
5. U can also select those stocks which are going to give range breakout or already given range BO
6 . If in 15 min chart📊 any stock sustaing near BO zone or after BO then select it on your watchlist
7 . Now next day if any stock show momentum u can take trade in it with RM
This looks very easy & simple but,
U will amazed to see it's result if you follow proper risk management.
I did 4x my capital by trading in only momentum stocks.
I will keep sharing such learning thread 🧵 for you 🙏💞🙏
Keep learning / keep sharing 🙏
@AdityaTodmal
1 - open trading view in your browser and select stock scanner in left corner down side .
2 - touch the percentage% gain change ( and u can see higest gainer of today)
Making thread \U0001f9f5 on trading view scanner by which you can select intraday and btst stocks .
— Vikrant (@Trading0secrets) October 22, 2021
In just few hours (Without any watchlist)
Some manual efforts u have to put on it.
Soon going to share the process with u whenever it will be ready .
"How's the josh?"guys \U0001f57a\U0001f3b7\U0001f483
3. Then, start with 6% gainer to 20% gainer and look charts of everyone in daily Timeframe . (For fno selection u can choose 1% to 4% )
4. Then manually select the stocks which are going to give all time high BO or 52 high BO or already given.
5. U can also select those stocks which are going to give range breakout or already given range BO
6 . If in 15 min chart📊 any stock sustaing near BO zone or after BO then select it on your watchlist
7 . Now next day if any stock show momentum u can take trade in it with RM
This looks very easy & simple but,
U will amazed to see it's result if you follow proper risk management.
I did 4x my capital by trading in only momentum stocks.
I will keep sharing such learning thread 🧵 for you 🙏💞🙏
Keep learning / keep sharing 🙏
@AdityaTodmal
1/12
RT-PCR corona (test) scam
Symptomatic people are tested for one and only one respiratory virus. This means that other acute respiratory infections are reclassified as
2/12
It is tested exquisitely with a hypersensitive non-specific RT-PCR test / Ct >35 (>30 is nonsense, >35 is madness), without considering Ct and clinical context. This means that more acute respiratory infections are reclassified as
3/12
The Drosten RT-PCR test is fabricated in a way that each country and laboratory perform it differently at too high Ct and that the high rate of false positives increases massively due to cross-reaction with other (corona) viruses in the "flu
4/12
Even asymptomatic, previously called healthy, people are tested (en masse) in this way, although there is no epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission. This means that even healthy people are declared as COVID
5/12
Deaths within 28 days after a positive RT-PCR test from whatever cause are designated as deaths WITH COVID. This means that other causes of death are reclassified as
RT-PCR corona (test) scam
Symptomatic people are tested for one and only one respiratory virus. This means that other acute respiratory infections are reclassified as
4/10
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) October 22, 2020
...indication, first of all that testing for a (single) respiratory virus is done outside of surveillance systems or need for specific therapy, but even so the lack of consideration of Ct, symptoms and clinical findings when interpreting its result. https://t.co/gHH6kwRdZG
2/12
It is tested exquisitely with a hypersensitive non-specific RT-PCR test / Ct >35 (>30 is nonsense, >35 is madness), without considering Ct and clinical context. This means that more acute respiratory infections are reclassified as
6/10
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) October 22, 2020
The neither validated nor standardised hypersensitive RT-PCR test / Ct 35-45 for SARS-CoV-2 is abused to mislabel (also) other diseases, especially influenza, as COVID-19.https://t.co/AkFIfTCTkS
3/12
The Drosten RT-PCR test is fabricated in a way that each country and laboratory perform it differently at too high Ct and that the high rate of false positives increases massively due to cross-reaction with other (corona) viruses in the "flu
External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results.https://t.co/mbNY8bdw1p pic.twitter.com/OQBD4grMth
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) November 29, 2020
4/12
Even asymptomatic, previously called healthy, people are tested (en masse) in this way, although there is no epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission. This means that even healthy people are declared as COVID
Thread web\u2b06\ufe0f\u2b07\ufe0f
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) December 16, 2020
The fabrication of the "asymptomatic (super) spreader" is the coronation of the total nons(ci)ense in the belief system of #CoronasWitnesses.
Asymptomatic transmission 0.7%; 95% CI 0%-4.9% - could well be 0%!https://t.co/VeZTzxXfvT
5/12
Deaths within 28 days after a positive RT-PCR test from whatever cause are designated as deaths WITH COVID. This means that other causes of death are reclassified as
8/8
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) March 24, 2020
By the way, who the f*** created this obviously (almost) worldwide definition of #CoronaDeath?
This is not only medical malpractice, this is utterly insane!https://t.co/FFsTx4L2mw
