Just got off the phone with a client who hasn’t been able to call because the jail has been taking his money for his meds.
In jail pretrial, they won’t continue you on any medicine you were on previously. You are abruptly taken off because you aren’t allowed to take your meds.
Every client I’ve had that died by suicide while incarcerated was having severe DTs due without any medical treatment whatsoever(it takes at least 20-30 to see medical)
No one could extend him even an ounce of humanity, a crumb of empathy, nothing.
I\u2019ve been doing public defense for over 16 years straight. I endorse every word of this horrifying account. This really happens. https://t.co/Uw6cwHCKVB
— Bear Wilner-Nugent (@Bonobo23) December 23, 2020
More from Health
Now you know I love to sh-t in Harvard. But I also like accuracy. So I decided to go look at Harvard’s catalog to see its lack of military history that this article describes (they only teach history of pets it claims) and what I found shocked me! Shocked me! A thread: 1/
First off, Harvard students literally have multiple sections of military history that they can take listed. (It appears these ones are taught at MIT, so they might have to walk down the street for these) but... 2/
Say they want to stay on campus...they can only take numerous classes on war and diplomacy...3/
They have an entire class on Yalta. That’s right. An entire class on Yalta. 4/
But wait! There is more! They can take the British Empire, The Fall of the Roman Empire for those wanting traditional topics... 5/
\u201cMilitary history\u201d is only in decline if you\u2014like the author & experts in this obnoxious piece\u2014see the subject as a narrowly defined, white dude-oriented, guns & bayonets approach. The field is 1000% better off w/today\u2019s diversity of topics & historians. https://t.co/dUf3OWyVpQ
— Jonathan S. Jones (@_jonathansjones) February 1, 2021
First off, Harvard students literally have multiple sections of military history that they can take listed. (It appears these ones are taught at MIT, so they might have to walk down the street for these) but... 2/
Say they want to stay on campus...they can only take numerous classes on war and diplomacy...3/
They have an entire class on Yalta. That’s right. An entire class on Yalta. 4/
But wait! There is more! They can take the British Empire, The Fall of the Roman Empire for those wanting traditional topics... 5/
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.
