It exists everywhere, why not? Apart from countries with wealth tax but these are rare exceptions.
As for taxation of income derived from business, these are either completely or mostly tax-exempt in many EU countries (Cyprus, Malta, Greece for 100K a year, Italy for 300K a year, Spain if you do a lot of paperwork, Portugal in some places, probably there's more). There's no US equivalent.
Perhaps it has to do with not eating yet due to it being early in the morning. We know that fasting and ketosis increase autophagy. There wouldn't be much ketosis just over night, if any, but a slight increase due to fasting (sleep time->not eating) could be a thing to look into).
There's a mostly-unsubstantiated-by-data belief that LED lighting can NOT cause health problems by some combination of flickering and narrow color spectrum.
Many mental illness are now being fully resolved after ~9 to 12 months on a low carb diet.
Not a magic bullet (since I know many idiots will comment who are incapable in thinking in probabilities but only think in black and white), but the fact that some people were fully healed or at least partially improved their life quality is obviously insane progress compared to any medication, which either doesn't work fully or stops working over time.
We have some case studies and pilot studies without any kind of control. Perhaps keto/low carb could be helpful (it certainly is with epilepsy!), but I certainly haven’t seen any evidence that it’s superior to other diets that achieve the same things (I.e. weight loss, or higher clinician contact time - a lot of these pilot studies end up losing a bunch of weight and getting several extra hours per week of contact with their clinician - who knows if much/all of the benefit comes from this?).
Having had quite a lot of experience with the keto/low carb crowd, I think we’d see a lot more adoption/interest in their ideas if they approached things in a less ideological/dogmatic way. It’s hard for responsible clinicians to get involved with, say, Metabolic Mind when people like Bret Scher hand wave around the CVD risks from high SFA intakes, or big up low quality work like the godawful Keto-CTA paper.
There _are_ responsible keto advocates out there like Ethan Weiss, and I suspect that if the keto/low carb community were to promote _their_ work rather than that of people like Nick Norwitz and Dave Feldman then their diet of choice would be taken more seriously.
Unfortunately much of the low carb movement is quack town at the moment. I hope they get their act together, there are benefits in there for people in need, but they need to get serious first.
I've never heard of any other diet or non-keto nutritionist being able to reverse such mental illness. Do you have any links?
>> but I certainly haven’t seen any evidence that it’s superior to other diets that achieve the same things
You can find many N=1 examples for this on the linked youtube channel and then you have hundreds of testemonials here (click load more) on the carnivore diet healing autoimmune issues:
https://www.revero.com/blog/success-stories
No other non-keto diet comes even close to this.
I've only ever come across the keto diet as the one that can do this to such an extent. I've only heard of some T2 diabetics reversing it by losing weight in the context of "any diet that causes weight loss".
They don't wave around CVD risks: they show you that all the pro "SFA is bad because of CVD" crowd is also full of biases and very bad science and pharma sponsored studies that shill statins etc...
I agree that the Keto-CTA paper was trash. Horwitz isn't the best when it comes to this.
Though when you say that most are quaks: the entire "SFA is bad" field can also be marked like this when you see that most of those studies are trash, how eg "lasagna" is designated as "meat" in studies and similar trash.
There is no clear signal about SFAs being bad since you can find counter-studies for each viewpoint.
If “highest number of n=1 studies wins” is your yardstick for causal inference then you’re part of the reason the keto crowd isn’t taken seriously. Wish I could sugar coat it more but that’s the reality, and I think some people on that side of the fence could do with some home truths.
> They don't wave around CVD risks: they show you that all the pro "SFA is bad because of CVD" crowd is also full of biases and very bad science and pharma sponsored studies that shill statins etc...
That is hand waving. The implicit claim being made by your statement is that because researchers have biases (true of all researchers) or they’re sponsored by interested parties (also true of keto studies, and not necessarily an indication of an issue with any given study) or also push medications or supplements (again, also true of keto studies) then we should treat all hypotheses tested in ways that contain these “flaws” as identical in validity.
However, that’s absurd. The evidence in favour of the claim that substituting PUFA in place of SFA reduces CVD incidence is absolutely mountainous in comparison to the evidence base supporting the claim that ketogenic diets cure mental health disorders.
In both cases, there exist sponsored studies, biased researchers and medication peddlers that support the hypothesis. Yet it sounds like you are willing to believe one but not the other. So what explains the difference in your attitude towards the two? Why do you believe it’s likely that keto cures these mental health issues but not that SFA consumption increases CVD incidence?
Why not both? You could be both depressed and don't like your partner.
Though depression could just as well be a side effect of not liking your partner: that is not wrong: it's a normal reaction when you don't move on. Treat depression as a signal to "move on".
In general when a person asks a question like this they have already made their mind and are just looking for external validation: for someone to say "find someone else".
Find someone else.
You just have to "spam" a lot. That's perhaps the ugly truth that romatic movies don't tell you: you can't know what all is out there unless you experience many people.
You obviously don't like this relationship. Sex is more important than people think, and no amount of talking will fix you not being sexually attracted to your partner (assuming you are a guy).
You make a fair point, and from a purely technical or policy perspective, I agree that bad governance shouldn't be conflated with the potential of nuclear technology itself.
However, as a writer, I’m describing the subjective reality of growing up in that environment. When you see 'scorched-earth' measures taken to manage a city, it shapes your visceral perception of that power, regardless of the science behind it. My goal isn't to debate nuclear policy, but to capture how that specific 'bad governing' colored the way we, as residents, perceived the very energy that defined our lives.
This argument that nuclear power generation is clean if you ignore the times when it isn't seems a bit no-true-Scotsman to me. It's a thing I've changed my mind about more than once in the past. What sways my thinking now is:
- most nuclear power does indeed seem to be well run with minimal pollution.
- when it goes wrong, the consequences are awful and long-lived (I can, off the top of my head, name two sites that are dangerous decades after they were polluted. I suspect there are others that don't have the same cultural resonance for me.
- the alternatives in terms of renewables and storage are improving seemingly from one day to the next.
The long term consequences, and human frailty in the face of a requirement for total and eternal vigilance convince me that the risk outweighs the reward. Where nuclear power once seemed [to me. I appreciated that some people have always been anti-nuke] like the least bad option compared with e.g. coal, now there are better ways to make our lives work.
If the endless 50-years-in-the-future ever actually expires and we get practical fusion power, it'll be interesting to see how this changes my thinking. Perhaps that will will have fewer toxic side effects when it goes wrong.
If I set up a wind generator and then leave it with no maintenance it's a risk to an area a little bit bigger than its maximum height. If I leave a nuclear reactor unattended it's a risk to hundreds of thousands of square miles.
I don't know about "bad governing". It sounds more like a rigorous containment policy when nuclear technology was at its infancy in China. (Regulations are written in the blood of your predecessors - https://old.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/ud3lt4/lpt_osh... ). It is also about preventing accident leakage of information and preserving secrecy. For e.g. In the 1970s, India learnt that Pakistan was working to create a nuclear weapon when Indian agents in Pakistan collected hair samples of Pakistan's nuclear scientist, from a barber shop where they got their hair cut - traces of plutonium radiation were found in the hair samples, and Pakistan's nuclear weapons program got exposed.
Thanks for the info. I wouldn't know anything about this as I just totally avoid AI tech - whether for online search or coding or some other service. It just doesn't excite me. (By the way, how do I know you are not AI too? ;)
Especially when comparing the number of deaths(1) from then-China's favourite energy source or simply Uranium's efficiency(2) and the fact we know now how to recycle most of the waste(3)
Sure, I prefer the solar too, but I agree the governance is the bigger problem in the example from the story.
It's possible it exists in other countries, I don't know that.
reply