Youtube comments of (@theanatomylab).
-
16000
-
12000
-
7600
-
5000
-
4900
-
4100
-
3800
-
3200
-
2800
-
2500
-
2300
-
2100
-
2100
-
1800
-
1700
-
1600
-
1500
-
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
1300
-
1300
-
1300
-
1300
-
1300
-
1200
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
962
-
953
-
949
-
942
-
904
-
856
-
847
-
793
-
791
-
789
-
755
-
754
-
725
-
653
-
621
-
619
-
610
-
607
-
604
-
599
-
596
-
584
-
581
-
557
-
556
-
552
-
551
-
545
-
542
-
536
-
529
-
524
-
523
-
520
-
487
-
475
-
475
-
451
-
439
-
421
-
412
-
406
-
405
-
403
-
400
-
397
-
395
-
382
-
372
-
367
-
364
-
364
-
358
-
351
-
348
-
343
-
340
-
334
-
334
-
331
-
321
-
320
-
318
-
308
-
307
-
303
-
302
-
300
-
298
-
292
-
287
-
284
-
282
-
281
-
278
-
277
-
276
-
274
-
267
-
263
-
263
-
262
-
262
-
261
-
257
-
257
-
257
-
257
-
256
-
256
-
255
-
253
-
250
-
248
-
247
-
243
-
242
-
241
-
241
-
239
-
236
-
236
-
235
-
235
-
233
-
233
-
231
-
231
-
229
-
229
-
229
-
228
-
221
-
214
-
214
-
212
-
211
-
210
-
209
-
209
-
206
-
206
-
206
-
205
-
203
-
203
-
203
-
202
-
199
-
196
-
195
-
194
-
188
-
188
-
188
-
186
-
186
-
184
-
182
-
182
-
182
-
181
-
179
-
179
-
178
-
177
-
176
-
176
-
176
-
176
-
175
-
174
-
171
-
169
-
169
-
167
-
166
-
166
-
165
-
165
-
164
-
164
-
164
-
164
-
163
-
163
-
163
-
162
-
161
-
157
-
156
-
156
-
154
-
154
-
154
-
152
-
152
-
152
-
151
-
151
-
150
-
150
-
148
-
147
-
145
-
145
-
143
-
142
-
141
-
141
-
141
-
140
-
139
-
138
-
136
-
135
-
134
-
133
-
132
-
132
-
132
-
131
-
131
-
127
-
126
-
126
-
124
-
123
-
121
-
121
-
121
-
121
-
120
-
120
-
120
-
119
-
119
-
118
-
117
-
117
-
117
-
113
-
112
-
112
-
112
-
112
-
112
-
111
-
111
-
110
-
110
-
108
-
108
-
108
-
107
-
107
-
107
-
106
-
106
-
106
-
105
-
104
-
103
-
102
-
102
-
101
-
101
-
101
-
100
-
100
-
100
-
100
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
97
-
97
-
97
-
96
-
95
-
95
-
95
-
94
-
94
-
92
-
92
-
92
-
92
-
92
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
90
-
90
-
90
-
90
-
90
-
89
-
89
-
89
-
89
-
88
-
88
-
88
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
85
-
85
-
84
-
84
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
82
-
82
-
81
-
81
-
81
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
79
-
78
-
78
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
76
-
76
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
I respectfully have to disagree with this, for a couple of reasons.
1. If we use the 40% example, you would mostly just be taking the slow-twitch fibers to exhaustion rather than really engaging many of the fast twitch fibers, and this would start to stimulate a different type of muscular adaptation, which is muscular endurance rather than strength. You would see adaptations like increased capillary formation and increased number of mitochondria in the slow-twitch fibers, and wouldn't see much of a strength increase compared to using something like 80%.
2. If the goal is muscular strength (which we know the fast-twitch fibers greatly contribute to), you aren't going to see huge strength increases by using 40% of your 1RM. Now there are some exceptions to this, like if you are new to lifting weights, then you would see some gains even at 40%, but that would only go so far and still would not stimulate strength adaptations as great as the 80%.
Let's say we took two groups of people, had one group squat at 40% of there 1RM to exhaustion, and then another group at 80% or higher, you definitely would see much greater increases in strength with the 80% or greater group.
Another way to look at this would be jogging vs sprinting. When you fatigue your leg muscles with a half hour jog, you don't really tap into those fast-twitch fibers like you would if you were to sprint just by doing more "reps" with a lighter longer jog.
Sorry about the essay response, lol. Thanks for commenting!
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
I understand your thoughts on this, and spent some time pondering this myself. As you say, Shelley was indeed vague.
However, it was this line from the book that caused me to believe that not only were dead bodies used in some capacity, animal parts were as well (I decided to leave that out of the video).
"The dissecting room and slaughter-house furnished many of my materials...".
I agree that the entirety of the creature may not have been made from dead bodies, and you made some fantastic points, but I also believe that some of the creature was definitely made with human remains.
Based on Frankensteins "ah-ha" moment in the charnal houses observing decaying flesh, I believe that corpses were used to create the "Monster". That however, is an assumption.
Still, I stand by the above quote, and firmly believe that human remains were used in the creatures creation.
Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful comment!
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
To be fair, without antibiotics, strep throat is routinely lethal.
We can’t pretend as though science and medicine has only produced “lobotomy” type malpractice.
The entire human story is one of progression, mistakes, and ideally learning from those mistakes.
I often tell people, if you don’t want to trust the science, there’s no need to go to the hospital — ever, under any circumstances.
While there’s a good chance your comment isn’t based in any extremist view and I’ve simply and unfairly latched on to it in order to rant, I think it’s important for people to understand that epistemology — the theory of knowledge and it’s methods and validity — isn’t a straight line progression. We should always intend no harm, but statistically speaking, it’s impossible.
If science deniers aren’t able to provide an alternate framework, or are just attacking to achieve some other end, it’s difficult to take the criticism seriously.
Humans struggle with nuance, and that’ll always be the case. Nuance is by definition subtle, and most aren’t willing to spend the time (understandably so) to not only identify the subtlety, but comprehend it.
But if they aren’t willing to put in the work themselves or trust the ones that have, there’s no productive conversation to be had, and I again invite them to stay home and hope for the best when it comes to their illnesses.
Again, this comment truly isn’t targeted to you specifically, but instead something that’s been on my mind, and your comment seemed a decent place to vent.
Thank you for watching our videos, and all the best to you!
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
FIT is fantastic at detecting cancer, but awful at detecting polyps when compared to colonoscopy.
The purpose of the colonoscopy is to detect and remove the polyps before they become cancerous, as well as identify any other bowel issues such as ulcerative colitis.
Ideally, a combination of screening tests would be administered, such as FIT, gFOBT (if necessary) and colonoscopy. On top of that, DNA testing coupled with a proper family history breakdown would be even better.
With that said, while FIT, gFOBT, and FIT-DNA are all great screening tests and something everyone should consider, the colonoscopy is still the gold standard in terms of screening, since it covers more ground than the other tests.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Glad you enjoy the videos!!
Respectfully though, we very much stand by the DEXA scan inaccuracy, and that's not to say they don't have utility.
Here's a link to a fantastic article that includes the published research around DEXA scans and how they can be inaccurate.
https://weightology.net/the-pitfalls-of-body-fat-measurement-part-6-dexa/
In our view, the most important thing is reliability and reproducibility, not necessarily accuracy.
If the DEXA scan is routinely 1-2% off in its accuracy, it's still able to determine trends, and is a highly valuable method for measuring.
After all, 1-2% (or even 4%) off in its numbers is still highly accurate! If it works for you, it's a fantastic resource!
Still though, it is inaccurate to an extent, and it does indeed deliver radiation. Both factors should be taken into account when determining the method that's right for you.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Sponsored integrations like this help tremendously.
Google Ad Sense fluctuates wildly, and given the relatively graphic nature of our content, we make significantly less than 90% of YouTubers from whatever ads are placed on our videos, since many brands don't want to placed on a video with a cadaver.
It also takes a considerable amount of effort for both Jonathan and Justin to make these videos weekly, given the hours of researching, filming, editing, and then monitoring the comment section upon publishing, all while teaching in-person labs, dissecting, and having other jobs and families to be with.
When it comes to choosing sponsors for our videos, the team at IOHA vets them carefully, and only chooses those that we believe in and use.
Justin had his identity stolen over a decade ago, and knows full well the consequences of such a thing happening. Because of this, he believes wholeheartedly in Aura's mission, and is glad to have them as a sponsor for this video.
While we understand that the ads may be inconvenient to you, they serve a larger purpose, ensuring that we're able to deliver free, weekly content to you in a way that no other biology channel in the world is doing.
The ideal situation would be that we could afford to make videos based off of Google Ad Sense, but unfortunately that just isn't the case.
Please keep in mind that you have the ability to fast forward the video during the sponsor segments as well, especially if they frustrate you.
We appreciate your understanding with this.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Genetic drift and bottlenecking, while extraordinarily influential, is not the primary driver of the evolutionary process in all populations. The question of "punctuated equilibrium" and "gradualism" is still hotly debated today, and you're presenting it as if the matter was settled.
It's also important to note that Artificial Selection is far more influential than genetic drift, given humans domination of the planet.
Claiming "constantly experimenting to find a better way" leads to racism, eugenics, and social darwinism is an extraordinarily biased conclusion, and frankly, unnecessarily dramatic.
At no point in the video was it claimed that the evolutionary process had a goal, nor was it claimed that it would lead to a "perfectly evolved case".
Those words are yours, and don't reflect Justin's opinions in the slightest.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
This is where philosophy meets the physical world, and there is much yet to be understood.
Philosophically speaking, some say that morals and ethics are entirely what you make of it.
Others believe morals and ethics are hardcoded into our DNA, and therefore our brain.
Others believe that morals and ethics are provided by God.
There are plenty more possibilities than just these, but regardless of whichever of those are accurate, morality and ethics are processed in specific areas of the brain, or at least more so in some areas than others.
For example, if you were to have subjects be placed in an fMRI or PET, and then asked them moral and ethical questions, even if each of them subscribe to a different philosophical or theological underpinning for their moral and ethical beliefs, you'd still see the same areas of the brain light up.
This tells us that the brain has specific real estate for processing such information, although we don't know if any moral or ethical viewpoint is truly correct.
Hopefully this helps
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The definition of 'undead' has changed significantly over time, and is also thought of differently in varying cultures.
Among horror authors, for example, they may choose to define 'undead' differently than their peers in order to serve the overall story. This, to me, is completely fine. Definitions change all the time for everything and anything.
With that said, the classical view of a "zombie" is someone who has died, and their tissues become animated, allowing them to move and experience some innate sense of hunger and desire to cause harm. If their tissue is rotting off their body, their brain must also be rotting, therefore making the "zombie" impossible.
There's no way around this.
It's this type of "zombie" I'm speaking about in the video. If you were to ask your average individual, "what is a zombie?", I suspect the vast majority, but definitely not all, would give a definition similar to the depiction in this video.
Other types of "zombies", which includes those who are being "controlled" by some type of pathogen, aren't discussed in this video. To cover all types of "zombies" discussed in movies and literature in a single video would simply be too much.
However, in a future video I plan on discussing why "pathogenic zombies" are extremely unlikely, but definitely NOT impossible like the "classical" zombie is.
Importantly though, defining what constitutes a "zombie" will be essential, and something many will likely disagree with. Either way, it'll make for a fun video, and it'll be something I do within the coming months.
As far as I'm concerned, "zombies" are extremely fun to discuss and think about. However, the way they're most commonly depicted in movies and literature must be a product of magic.
I hope this helps.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Respectfully, this isn’t anything close to the smoking gun you believe it to be… at least, it’s not the smoking gun carnivore diet proponents believe it to be (I don’t want to unfairly assume you’re a carnivore diet acolyte).
Here’s the published paper you’re referring to -
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0134116
It’s a fantastic paper, and something everyone interested in dietary evolution should read.
As you stated, it shows that human stomach acid is more in line with carrion scavengers, and likely restricts new microbial species from entering the digestive tract to ensure pathogens don’t populate it.
Again, absolutely fascinating.
It also means nothing in regards to prebiotics and microbial diversity in the gut, and also doesn’t change anything in regards to humans being omnivore.
Prebiotics (fermentable fiber), are possibly the most important aspect of plant consumption, at least in regards to the gut microbiota.
Even with the highly acidic environment of the human stomach, plant fiber is unaffected, passes through the gut and is fermented by microbes in the colon.
When enough prebiotics are consumed by humans, it creates highly diverse microbial environment that is likely extremely important for overall digestive health.
Consumed probiotics (bacterial species) likely have a role in human digestive health, but it’s also likely nowhere near as significant as many believe.
It’s entirely within the realm of possibility that humans evolved to be hypercarnivores, and plant consumption exists to primarily provide prebiotics to the gut microbiota instead of contributing microbial species to the gut.
If that’s the case, humans are still omnivores. Hypercarnivorism is defined as receiving 70% or more of macronutrients from animal protein. While that’s a high percentage, it’s not 100%, and it still means we’re omnivore.
Carnivore diet maximalists, just as plant-based maximalists, always seem to fall into the same trap — getting caught up in the hype, and extrapolating to the point of hyper-restriction, which can only come with nutritional deficiency in some regard.
If carnivore and plant-based diet proponents would simply admit — from a nutritional standpoint — that humans have nutritional requirements that are best received from a diverse diet, I’d have no issue with debating the details (maybe 80% meat, 20% plant — or 90% meat, 10% plant — or 35% meat and 65% plant, etc).
Instead, we’re left with groups of people saying that ONLY plants or ONLY meat should be consumed, which is just objectively and obviously false.
The reason stomach acidity wasn’t mentioned in the video is the same reason plenty of other evolutionary adaptations weren’t mentioned — the video was already plenty long, and at some point you have to decide what information gets the point across.
Tl;dr - human stomach acidity pH is closer to hyenas than cows. However, that means nothing in regards to whether we evolved to consume plants, since prebiotics are unaffected by the acidity.
Instead, it reinforces the “opportunivore” narrative, and further supports humans being omnivore.
Dietary maximalism should be avoided like the plague, since maximalism of nearly any kind boxes someone in to the point of irrationality and dogmatic blindness.
Again, and this likely doesn’t come across in my response, I truly mean this respectfully. You may not be anything close to what I’ve assumed, and if so, I apologize (and even if you are, rudely lecturing isn’t the best way to have productive dialogue).
Truthfully, your comment is one I’ve seen and heard from many in the carnivore community, and I (possibly unfairly) used it to get a message across.
All the best,
- Justin
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
As with most things, there are certain general rules that have several exceptions.
Generally speaking, you're born with as many fat cells as you'll ever have.
However, if you become obese before the age of 14, the body is able to produce more adipocytes, thereby increasing the cell count.
It's also possible for adults to produce more adipocytes after a procedure such as this one or another equally invasive procedure.
However, the number produced is minimal at best.
Our understanding of adipose (again, as it is with most things) is constantly evolving.
Still, for most cases and situations, it's likely best to think of adipose cell count remaining relatively the same through life, with the cells simply increasing/decreasing in size depending on lifestyle and diet.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
A combination is ideal... For the person just looking for general overall fitness: about 3-4 hours a week of zone 2 cardio (that is steady state cardio that would be broken into 3-5 sessions per week, at a pace where you could mostly a hold a conversation, that can be done with brisk walking, jogging, treadmill, a bike. You'll notice that has you get more fit that you can go at a faster pace with the same amount of perceived effort), 3-4 days a week of moderate intensity of resistance training, and it would be nice to do one day a week of intense intervals (like 3-4 minutes as hard as you can go on a run/treadmill, bike, followed by 3-4 minutes of rest, and do that 3-4 times. Want to have reasonable amount of fitness before starting this).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Rigor mortis and overall tissue decomposition would still be an insurmountable issue, unless the tissue is kept at an appropriate temperature, as I mention in the video.
Limb replantations and organs transplants occur often these days, showing that this is an entirely different scenario than undead zombies.
Zombies are creatures that are mobile and somewhat conscious, despite nothing being done to prevent decomposition.
Necrotic (decaying) tissue can't be regenerated by any known means. This is why necrotic tissue must be removed when transplants occur. Instead, cellular division from living cells must occur to replace the lost necrotic tissue.
If the tissue is simply cooled and the procedure happens quickly enough, the cells don't die and become necrotic. Instead their metabolic processes slow down immensely, but there's no need for reanimation since the cells are still alive.
As you may recall from the zombie video, once autolysis (lysosomal degradation of the cell) kicks in, the cell is destroyed beyond repair. Even if the tissue looks salvageable, there's no protein functionality at the microscopic level.
Also, ATP is essential for cellular mechanisms to occur.
Zombies aren't breathing, which means oxygen isn't present to create enough ATP for overall functionality. However, if the tissue is cooled enough (as they do with limb and organ transplantation and replantation), the mitochondria can remain intact, and once oxygen-rich blood flow has been returned to the area, everything can operate as normal.
This doesn't occur with zombies in any shape, way, or form.
In the end, it comes down to whether or not the appropriate step were taken to prevent autolysis. However, if these steps were taken with someone assumed to have died (body is cooled, but not frozen) and once warmed they "come to life", I would argue they were never dead, meaning they don't classify as a zombie.
I hope this helps!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
From my own reading and also based on the opinions of various literary scholars, I respectfully disagree.
I believe the monster indeed was created with the use of dead human body parts.
Here's the direct quote from the book, which heavily influences my opinion.
"I had returned to my old habits. I had collected bones form charnel-houses and disturbed, with profane fingers, the tremendous secrets of the human frame. In a solitary chamber, or rather cell, at the top of the house, and separated from all the other apartments by a gallery and staircase, I kept my workshop of filthy creation; my eyeballs were starting from their sockets in attending to the details of my employment. The dissecting room and slaughter-house furnished many of my materials; and often did my human nature turn with loathing from my occupation, whilst, still urged on by an eagerness which perpetually increased, I brought my work near to a conclusion."
The key quote here is "The dissecting room and slaughter-house furnished many of my materials..."
I completely agree with much of what you said (especially that people should read the book because it's interesting), but it seems very clear that dead body parts were indeed used in the creation (as well as animal parts).
How many, and to what degree is very much debatable (it could've been very little in actuality), but assuming the Monster was entirely grown neglects the details provided by Mary Shelley.
With that said, I admit that the Monster I discussed creating in the video wasn't a book-accurate version. Instead, it was an amalgamation of the different versions created throughout film, theatre, and Mary Shelley's book, but importantly a version familiar to most everyone.
I should've been much more clear on that, which was my mistake.
Still, it seems abundantly clear that real human remains were used in some capacity in the creation of the Monster.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thanks for the feedback. Although, I do have to gently push back on your points…
The differences between an awake, meditative, and sleep state were indeed discussed, and multiple times at that. It’s important to note that the reason it wasn’t presented as “this is the meditative state, awake state, or sleep state”, is because that’s not how the brain works. Instead, the brain moves in an out of these states at the individual neuron level, local level, and even global level.
The reason changes to the brain wasn’t discussed is because that’s a conversation for the MRI, fMRI, PET scan companion video.
Your feedback is noted though, because both those points could have been made more clear in the video.
All the best
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
One of the most active studies in all of biology is longevity — living longer, while also healthier.
Diet and nutrition have been, and continue to be studied extensively, including optimal diets, and whether plant or animal based diets are the ideal.
At this point in time, given the available data (cadaveric/metabolic/cultured/animal/centenarian), a primarily plant based diet is seen to be best.
However, as mentioned in the video, there’s a lot of nuance to it, and it’s best to be ready to evolve along with the incoming data.
Most nutritionists and dietitians, working off of the most up to date information, would recommend a diet something along the lines of Mediterranean.
However, it’s not as though other diets aren’t beneficial, and maybe even better for certain individuals given unique biology.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You have to ask yourself why there was over and unnecessary prescribing in the first place.
The over prescription, in many cases, was a product of manipulative and greed driven incentives by pharmaceutical companies such as Purdue Pharma and Insys — it's well documented, and available for you to look into yourself.
The narrative surround OxyContin being less addictive was disturbingly impactful in causing providers around the United States to make prescriptions they otherwise wouldn't have.
Once the reality of OxyContin and the malpractices of Purdue Pharma were discovered, a cascade of events occurred, including the premature (and objectively incorrect) decision to limit oxycodone prescription, which created a vacuum of available opioids, leaving countless stranded with no other option but to turn to illicit sources.
Fentanyl's rise came from a combination of a similar malpractice of the pharmaceutical company Insys, as well as other pharmaceutical companies finding new delivery systems for fentanyl (such as buccal tablets), and a flood of illicitly made fentanyl coming from China and India.
It has now shifted towards most of the illicitly produced fentanyl coming from Mexico, being masked as varieties of supposedly legitimate medications, and then as a cutting agent for heroin.
In between each of these events, countless other small steps toward the current opioid epidemic occurred from governmental entities, pharmaceutical companies, and overall public perception.
Complex issues such as this have complex origins, and most often can't be traced to singular causes, such as States cracking down on providers for over prescribing.
It's far too simplistic, and doesn't line up with the verifiable and well documented history of the situation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Schools, businesses, and banks are all open today — no one gets the day off.
The only thing I get as a Veteran is a free ice cream cone from McDonalds.
National Pie Day is likely better received since all citizens are able to take advantage.
It’s important to understand that the US is incredibly diverse, despite what the media presents to the rest of the world.
If you were to ask the opinions of the US military to someone in Florida vs Oregon, you’re likely to get two VERY different answers, yet both are US citizens.
It’s been my direct experience that most US citizens don’t “worship” the military or its service members, but instead appreciate them in the same way a Fire Fighter is appreciated, yet not worshipped.
There are definite exceptions, as with all things, but the global perception that US citizens “worship” service members and Veterans simply isn’t true, nor has it ever been (look at the treatment of Vietnam Veterans).
That doesn’t mean most US citizens hate service members or Veterans, but there’s no love affair either.
Veterans commit suicide at a high rate, and a high percentage of Veterans are homeless.
If there was some profound and deep appreciation in all US citizens (or even the majority), this simply wouldn’t be tolerated.
“Worship”, whether it was hyperbole or not, is a far cry from the truth.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Simply untrue.
There are around 1,300 remaining Hadza, and of that 1,300 only about 200 are true hunter-gatherers.
The males will eat as much meat as they can find, and would gladly live off of meat, honey, and cannabis if they could.
The females, however, eat primarily high fiber diets, but also consume meat whenever males choose to bring the meat back to them.
Even still, the males are constantly scavenging when hunting — gladly eating berries, tubers, and anything else they can find along the way.
The carnivore diet is demonstrably wrong, and will fade out just as the paleo diet did before it.
There is an immense amount of data that shows humans are opportun-ivores, and will eat whatever they can find.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The trouble with nutritional studies (and many other types of studies) are typically confounding factors. It doesn't mean that meaningful and actionable information can't be gathered from them, but often times they can leave the results far more open to interpretation than desired.
Comparing brains, organs, muscles and bones would be fantastic, depending on the parameters of the study.
To do it correctly though, race/ethnicity, age, sleep habits, alcohol consumption, stress levels (cortisol can have a dramatic effect on metabolism), and plenty of other factors would need to be accounted for.
Some factors aren't as important as others, and good science can still be done without them, but given how highly nuanced nutrition can be, it's difficult at times to determine which ones aren't as important, and to what degree.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This research comes from Rob Knight and Jeff Leach, primarily.
While there are somewhere around 1,200 Hadza remaining, Rob Knight and his team have studied a select group of around 150 or so that are considered the closest living humans to a true Hunter/Gatherer diet, even when compared to other Hadza.
There's a large difference in the diet between males and females.
Females and children eat a large amount of tubers and berries, and considerably less meat than the males. They only consume meat if the males bring it back after a hunt, and many times the males simply eat all the meat and claim the hunt was unsuccessful.
Males also eat considerably more honey than females, since they are consuming as much as they can physically handle while out hunting, and not bringing any back with them.
You're correct in saying that the tubers are chewed on and the pulp is sucked out, but the fiber cannot be completely eliminated from consumption during the process. It can be difficult to assess how much fiber is consumed in this manner, but it's incorrect to assume that the answer is none/insignificant.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thank you, and such a great question.
The simple answer is proper diet and exercise. The deeper answer is that it depends on the overall health of the individual.
Fiber is phenomenal and improving and maintaining gut health. The problem is that if the gut is already is malhealth, fiber can make it worse.
Unfortunately there’s no answer I can give that will cover every person, even if they’re the same age, or suffer from the same condition.
The best thing a person can do is try their best to eat as healthy as they can (fiber heavy vegetables, fruits, well sourced protein, plenty of water, etc.), and exercise within their ability.
Even then, life can come at you from an angle you don’t expect, and can’t prepare for.
To sum it up, eat as many vegetables and fruits as you can, drink plenty of water, exercise consistently, and get plenty of healthy sleep.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Great question!
It depends on the environment, circumstances, and how you define "predator".
Humans are extraordinarily weak and slow when compared to a large amount of other animals on the planet. Each of them could be considered a "natural predator" within a specific set of circumstances. In other circumstances, even the most ferocious animals on Earth are no real risk to us.
For the sake of argument, imagine a scenario where humans are dropped into an environment filled with "natural predators" while naked, alone, and without tools. If using our brain to outsmart the animals isn't much of an option, the outcome doesn't look good for the human.
When getting attacked by the animals, they'll be likely to injure one (or more) of these areas during the attack.
Our species has become dominant on this planet because of our brain and ability to run long distances — not because we don't have any "natural predators".
Also, being able to "kick forward" is indeed a great advantage, but only if you're dealing with other humans, or animals that pose little to no risk to us, physically. Trying to kick an Ostrich, for example, would end terribly.
On top of this, kicking "other humans" is only easy if the other human isn't trained in self-defense or experienced with fighting. Even then, human reflexes will attempt to avoid the kick, with varying results.
The fact is, these areas are enormous liabilities regardless of the situation.
Moving in groups while clothed, carrying tools (weapons), and using our big brains are fantastic ways to decrease the chance of these weaknesses being exploited, but it can't possibly remove them entirely.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Absolutely — that's a reasonable stance to have. The issue I have though is simple — frying foods does indeed create trans fat.
Context matters here, as it does with all things. If someone exercises regularly (cardio and resistance training), sleeps 8 hours per night, doesn't consume alcohol, achieves their macros and micros and doesn't exceed them in any consistent manner, the trans fat isn't likely to harm them in any meaningful way.
However, if that same individual is given the choice between deep fried potato chips and an oven baked potato to achieve their caloric goals, the oven baked potato is still an objectively better choice given the fiber and lack of trans fat.
Toxicity is dependent on the dose, but that doesn't mean we can't make intelligent decisions based on experience.
Data very clearly shows trans fat to be harmful, so given the choice (regardless of overall health) between consuming it or not, the smarter choice will always be to not consume it.
Am I going to shame someone for eating a bag of potato chips? Absolutely not. Will one bag of deep fried Lays potato chips destroy the body? Again, absolutely not.
But that doesn't mean it's a healthy choice either.
I hope this helps.
All the best,
- Justin
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
We appreciate the feedback!
Using stock footage is something we’ve discussed at length internally, and are always trying to find the appropriate amount and type to add to the video.
The reason we use it in our videos is because our analytics clearly show it improves viewership retention. When we first began posting videos, we never used any stock footage. As soon as we incorporated it though, our videos began to perform significantly better.
Still, your point is a valid one, and something we consider often. We’re always striving to make the best videos we can, but we also understand there’s simply no way we can please everyone.
Without question, if our audience largely agrees with you and wants the footage gone, we’ll happily do so. At this point however, we’re going to be keeping it in.
We do plan on doing more podcasts and other types of videos though, and those won’t likely have any stock footage.
Again, we truly appreciate your comment and support.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, but also no. Brain waves are just one way to measure brain activity. As stated in the video, there's several other neuroimaging techniques such as MRI, fMRI, and PET Scans.
When you combine neuroimaging data, pathological data, psychological data, biochemical data, and plenty of other sources of data, we know a tremendous amount about the brain.
However, we still have substantially more to learn.
2
-
It's very true that consciousness is still poorly understood, which has moved from an abstract problem to a real world problem with recent developments in AI (i.e., how will we know when a system is conscious if we don't understand consciousness).
Still, it's important to understand that everything in biology breaks down when you get to the hyper-granular level. Everything.
At the most basic of levels, we don't don't know how skeletal muscles contract, how embryos develop step-by-step, how individual hormone saturation should relate to overall levels, and plenty, plenty more.
Biology is orders of magnitude more complex than chemistry and physics, which is both exciting and at times tiring.
Again, your statements are 100% correct, but it's not as though we're drowning in ignorance either.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
September 11th was a big motivator, but I'd be lying if I didn't say the biggest motivation was a lack of desire to go to college after graduating High School.
I grew up in a conservative state, with a conservative family, and I assumed that the war in Iraq was completely justified, and truthfully didn't do much to investigate the truth of the matter.
It wasn't until I deployed twice to Iraq that my opinion changed, having seen first hand what the local people truly thought of us, as well as the consequences of our military actions.
I personally saw local Iraqi's being paid to not fight against US troops, and it was in that moment I truly understood that war is never about right or wrong — good or bad. Instead, it's about perception, both home and abroad.
When I got out of the Marine Corps, I went to a local Town Hall meeting for a U.S. Congressman up for reelection. I sat there for 3 hours while citizens came up to the microphone and berated the Congressman for anything and everything, yet not once did I hear a single concern for the troops voiced.
It was in that moment that I realized the public actually didn't care about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or at least, they didn't care beyond putting "Support the Troops" bumper stickers on their cars and thumping their chests come election time.
They had busy lives, and there were plenty of other issues far more impactful to their day to day activities than some war in a far off country.
My opinions and experiences shouldn't be assumed to be the same for all service members, but I've found there to be a large amount that agree with my sentiment.
I'm still extremely proud of the decision I made as a young 17 year old boy to join and fight for what I thought to be right, but I no longer see U.S. Foreign Policy through the lens I once did.
I now understand the game of politics, and how my naivety was used as a weapon for those unwilling to do the work themselves.
The world is complicated, but I genuinely believe most people to be good, well-intentioned people. While I don't agree with much of U.S. Foreign Policy these days, I know that current and former service members are good people, who only wanted to make the world a better place.
I will happily spend the rest of my days counting to fight for what I believe to be right, but that no longer includes supporting current US Foreign Policy.
Thanks for asking, and please know that everything I'm saying here is my own personal opinion.
All the best,
- Justin
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Respectfully, you've clearly misunderstood what was both said and implied in the video.
At not point in the video were CEO's blamed for the "failings of a sinful world"...
It was clearly stated that only a percentage of CEO's are psychopathic (somewhere around 10% or maybe even 20%).
Even so, that doesn't equate to them being "terrible" or "horrible" people, but instead helps explain how they're able to do what they do at such an effective level.
This isn't an indictment of the rich and successful as a group, but instead an interesting fact about how some individuals are able to achieve their wealth and success.
Please understand that Justin isn't flippantly claiming CEO's are psychopathic — that would be completely unfounded and wrong.
It's been known for quite sometime among psychological professionals that those that suffer from Antisocial Personality Disorder gravitate towards positions of power, which most definitely (and provably so) includes CEO's (as well as CFO's, COO's, and many others).
Just because you've know several CEO's doesn't change the observable facts surrounding APD.
So again, respectfully, if that's what you took away from the video, you clearly misunderstood what was being said.
All the best
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cocaine (as have other substances) has undoubtedly been used for political and social manipulation in South America, the United States and beyond. However, that doesn't change the pharmacokinetics of the substance, which was presented accurately here.
Cocaine (regardless of dose and consumption rate) is a powerful vasoconstrictor, and manipulator of neurotransmission. As a channel that speaks to large amounts of (and many young) viewers, endorsing the "safe" and "careful" usage of an illegal substance would an egregious overstep of influence, and frankly, wildly irresponsible.
We aren't in the position (nor should we be) to monitor or regulate an individuals usage of cocaine. Considering the effects can vary based on sex, weight, and countless other factors, endorsing its "safe" and "careful" consumption would be professionally, ethically and morally reckless on our behalf.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The pH of hydrochloric acid doesn’t kill all bacteria/microbes — it’s highly dependent on the species as well as other cofactors like accompanying ingredients and the individual environment.
The companies that produce probiotic supplements are aware of this, and take measures to protect the microbes. All of this verified through third party testing, or at least, it is with AG1.
Cocaine is nearly always cut with something else — creatine, laundry detergent, fentanyl, ketamine, baking soda, laxatives, and other substances, meaning safe consumption — even when the dose is “small” as you say — isn’t guaranteed or possible for most users.
Blowing out veins and infections are extremely common with intravenous drug use, and there is mountains of clinical data to back it up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Respectfully, you're incorrect, and demonstrably so.
You're viewing the situation from the lens of 2022 instead of 2013 (and 2002), which is what the intro to the video was referencing.
You only have to look as far as Insys and their product Subsys to understand the role that was played by physicians in the development of the fentanyl expansion to the opioid epidemic.
If you truly believe that physicians and Pharma played a non-significant role in the development and exacerbation of the problem, you're clearly ignorant on the history of OxyContin and Fentanyl prescription.
Again, you don't have to look any farther than Purdue Pharma, and their $200 million marketing campaign for OxyContin, and the influence they had over physicians.
Purdue literally claimed OxyContin to be less addictive than Morphine or Heroin, and less likely to be abused, while also providing bonus incentives for physicians that prescribe OxyContin.
Insys did the same.
Now, this isn't necessarily an indictment of the physicians as people, but instead a misunderstanding of mechanism of action and dependance in regards to opioids.
Again, this isn't speaking to the current rules and guidelines surrounding opioid prescription, but instead the reason as to why the rules and guidelines even exist in the first place.
Everything mentioned in the intro is backed up from the CDC, DEA, as well as the available litigation information from the prosecution of John Kapoor, the CEO and founder of Insys, as well as the litigation information available surrounding Purdue Pharma.
So once again, respectfully, you're wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The term "Zombie" has most definitely grown to encompass far more than just the "undead" of voodoo lore.
That's why it's mentioned at the end of the video that pathogenic zombies are different in respects to possibility.
However, with that said, I have to respectfully disagree that a cordyceps fungal infection in humans could create a "zombie", let alone make them even slightly aggressive.
I've played both "The Last of Us" games, and while they're great pieces of storytelling, they are firmly grounded in science fiction that is far closer to outright fiction than it is science.
While parasitic fungal infections that manipulate the host dramatically are real, they are specifically adapted for arthropods and other animals with far more simple anatomy and physiology.
For them to make a jump to a mammal such as a human, and also exhibit any kind of similar control to arthropods, it is so unlikely it might as well be impossible.
It also needs to be mentioned that cordyceps doesn't typically create violence or aggression in arthropods — it instead causes them to pursue isolation.
Now, this is assuming natural evolution of the fungus. If humans are the ones manipulating the biology of the pathogen in a laboratory setting, things become more possible.
How possible? That's up for immense debate.
I'm planning on making a follow up video in the near future that will discuss the many, many reasons why "The Last of Us", "28 Days Later", or several other pathogenic zombie scenarios could never happen, or at least unfold in a remotely similar fashion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The 10% myth can trace its origins as far back the late 1800’s, but was cemented into the public psyche by Lowell Thomas in 1936 — long before we knew the nuances of brain regions.
It’s a product of poor understanding — not potential.
The brains capacity, memory potential, and how many flops it uses is utterly massive, but also irrelevant due to how the brain actually functions as a product of synaptic pruning and neuroplasticity.
In the same way that deep learning models don’t necessarily benefit from larger and larger parameters, the brain doesn’t become more functional and high performing when more neurons/synapses/circuits/neuromodulation are utilized.
Large capacity/memory potential are useless if we have no way to efficiently and effectively utilize them, which every modern neuroscientific study shows that we don’t.
Technological augmentation will likely change that, but as of now, nothing of the sort is possible/useful.
Computer science has no bearing on the accuracy of the myth considering the myth originated before processing analogs provided any meaningful comparisons.
Regardless, if you’re able to provide sources showing the brain uses only 10% of its capacity and memory, please do.
Otherwise, it’s just an interesting hypothesis that has no bearing on the actual myth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Look, I'm trying to be respectful here, but it's important that I'm direct with you at the same time — you're propagating misinformation.
Perhaps you meant to say that only 3 ingredients go into cigars, or something similar to that effect...
Regardless, you made a truly fantastic claim... "cigars, pipe tobacco and other similar 100% natural tobacco products, the smoke is not inhaled and only 3 chemicals result from its combustion."
When you make a claim like that, it's your responsibility to provide evidence to back it up — not ours.
At this point, your only evidence is "trust me", which isn't convincing.
Still, here's evidence that your claim of "3 chemicals" is incorrect.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK586217/
Here's a direct quote from their conclusion:
"Here is conclusive evidence that the chemical nature of emissions from cigars in general, including premium cigars, are similar to those of cigarette smoke. There is strong biological plausibility that exposure to these chemicals will cause disease. Thus, if cigar smoke is inhaled and cigars are smoked regularly, the risks are likely to be qualitatively similar to those of cigarette smoking."
Now, as you mentioned, cigar smoke isn't supposed to be inhaled. However, they also mention that if "cigars are smoked regularly, the risks are likely to be qualitatively similar to those of cigarette smoking".
Even if the smoke isn't inhaled, the smoke is still interacting with the oral cavity, throat, larynx, and esophagus at a minimum.
However, smoke can passively make its way down the trachea, causing multiple issues there.
For that reason, cigars have been associated mouth and laryngeal cancers, again, despite the fact that it shouldn't be inhaled.
However, I want to be extremely clear on this point — cigars DO NOT only contain 3 chemicals when burned.
The reason the video didn't mention cigars only having 3 chemicals is because that's incorrect.
The reason the video didn't mention cigar smoke isn't to be inhaled is because it doesn't change the fact it's still toxic, and produces multiple issues for the mouth and throat.
If you believe we're wrong, you're welcome to produce sources showing that. If not, there's no reason to take the claim seriously.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thank you for your opinion! It's always great to hear from those who work directly with high end athletes.
I often tell my students that exercise science and nutrition are easily the most complicated sciences we know of, and many things we think we know will be wrong soon, and many things we believe to be wrong will correct soon.
Granted, that's every scientific discipline, but still...
The main issue at hand here though is the fact that any fascial manipulation due to manual therapies (such as foam rolling), has only been shown to have an effect for as long as the pressure is maintained, and has never been shown to have any long-term benefit.
Fascia has been shown to be colloidal, demonstrating a thixotropic effect. However, as soon as the foam roller (or whatever the pressure provider may be) is removed, the fascia returns back to its prior state.
This could simply be a product of not enough rigorous studies being performed, but it also could (and be more likely given the current evidence) because manual therapies are incapable of truly manipulating fascia.
This is where the primary debate between myofascial therapists originates — some say that only light pressure is capable of manipulating the collagen proteins, while others say it requires vast amounts of deep pressure to truly move the fibers.
Unfortunately, the available evidence doesn't support either.
Again though, as the saying goes, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Still, with such little evidence at all, it's difficult to understand why it's preferred by so many over other strategies that are far, far more proven through both anecdotal and evidence based research.
You have an interesting hypothesis, and I would be surprised if there isn't something extremely valuable at its core!
Thanks again for taking the time to view and respond to the video!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Reactions are typically impulsive, while responses are more carefully crafted.
For example, if a child is screaming at the top of their lungs, it's easy to react by screaming at them back to "STOP!!!"
A response would be more measured, where you can attempt to calm them down without screaming or moving toward aggressive tactics. It's based in reasoning with the child, or possibly even letting them scream until they've calmed to the point you can engage.
This is a pretty big simplification, but I think it helps make the point.
Philosophically speaking, many would say that emotion should play no part in human decision making.
However, others would say that navigating emotion is the very thing that makes us who we are.
In my eyes (this is entirely subjective, and I don't claim to be an expert in this), the "goal", if there is one, is to not let our emotions guide us, but instead compliment the logical, rational side of us.
I hope this helps clarify what was said in the video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To be clear, I’m not claiming your beliefs are wrong. You’re more than welcome to believe as you’d like, and despite me personally not agreeing with you, I’m happy to respect your beliefs.
However, you’re arguing a straw-man fallacy. No scientist believes humans evolved from apes…
If you were to open an evolutionary textbook, you’d see that humans are classified as Great Apes, along with Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Bonobos, and Orangutans.
We are then further classified as hominids, with our exact species being Homo sapiens.
We did NOT evolve FROM apes — we evolved alongside other apes, and share a common ancestor with Chimpanzees and Bonobos somewhere around 6 million years ago.
If your religion and belief structure doubts those events, that’s fine. Again, I don’t agree with it, but that’s fine for you to believe.
However, your argument is nonsensical, because you’re arguing against a premise no scientist actually believes.
The only people saying that humans evolved FROM apes or monkeys are those who don’t understand evolutionary theory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Our analytics show 70% of viewers aren't "kids", but are instead 24 - 72 years old.
The video reported on legitimate scientific research from Imperial College London. It's clearly stated in the video that we don't advocate for recreational DMT usage, but instead responsible medical research. As an educational channel, we always assume the viewer doesn't know anything about the subject matter, but are instead watching to learn and understand.
Viewers always come with biases and agendas — that's simply being human.
It's possible some viewers are more concerned with getting high, and it's also possible many viewers are not. Psychedelics have a wide range of intrigue among different demographics, and considering psychedelics such as DMT and Psilocybin are being researched at Yale University, Johns Hopkins and Imperial College London, it appears the scientific and medical communities see potential in them.
You're obviously welcome to your opinions regarding DMT, psychedelics and our videos on psychiatric disorders. The only thing we can do is continue to make videos we believe in, while also speaking to the importance of federal, state and local regulations.
All the best
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
While there's an element of truth to your statement, it's only superficially true, and doesn't hold water when it comes to the details.
We are undoubtedly a sexually dimorphic species, and that means there are clear masculine and feminine traits that help signify to the other sex that we are potential mating partners.
Denying such is denying reality.
However, pretending as though having more of a trait makes someone more masculine or feminine is far too simplistic.
For example, are those that suffer from male pattern baldness more or less masculine than those that don't?
Let's say you have two males — both large, buff, with deep voices, beards, and similar amounts of body hair. One has a full head of hair and the other does not.
Who is more masculine?
You may say that it's un unfair comparison considering that male pattern baldness may be pathological, however it's also clear that many females find it an attractive trait, which means that it falls under the domain of a sexually selected trait, and is therefore a fair comparison due to evolutionary pressures.
Your statement also neglects differences in racial/ethnic backgrounds.
Body hair and beards are again seen to be "classically masculine" traits. However, Polynesian males for example, don't typically grow hair in the same way as Caucasian males.
Again, let's say you have two males — both are large, buff with deeper voices, but one is Polynesian and has very little body hair and the other is Caucasian with a tremendous amounts of body hair.
Which is more masculine?
What about height? Again, being of taller stature is seen to be a more masculine trait.
Once more, let's assume we have two males — both are buff and have deep voices, but one is Taiwanese and stands about 5'2, and the other is Norwegian and stands about 5'10.
Which is more masculine?
I can go on and on with this, but I think the point has been made.
This isn't about gender norms or being overly sensitive — it's about actually understanding the nuances of a sexually dimorphic species.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As stated in the video, the actual diagnosis is Antisocial Personality Disorder (according to the DSM-5-TR).
Psychopathy and Sociopathy are simply ways of communicating severity of symptoms between professionals and lay people alike. Some professionals choose to use the terms primary and secondary psychopathy instead, but no terms are universally agreed upon.
When we speak of psychopaths or sociopaths, we do so informally. While it's best to say that someone who suffered from APD can be impulsive, it's also acceptable to say that a sociopath is more impulsive than a psychopath.
That doesn't mean that psychopaths can't be impulsive. Instead, sociopaths tend to be more impulsive on average. Still, it would ultimately be best to say that APD sufferers can exhibit impulsiveness, some more so than others.
It all comes down to who you're speaking to, and what you're attempting to convey.
The studies that show average IQ's for psychopaths, while fascinating and worthy of consideration, suffer from small sample sizes and/or a failure to parse out psychopathy vs sociopathy in regards to severity of symptoms.
Also, the studies neglect physical alterations (such as genetics), which further confuses the results.
It's also important to understand that the studies based around intelligence don't take into consideration the complexity of intelligence, such as G-Factor vs IQ.
Also, emotional intelligence (which includes empathy as the primary measurement) is widely considered among intelligence researchers to be utterly bogus.
Empathy, while important to understanding the human mind, shouldn't be conflated with intelligence.
Lastly, the studies also focus on intelligence between psychopaths and non-psychopaths — not psychopaths vs sociopaths, or primary vs secondary psychopathy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Great question, and the answer is quite complex.
This video was age restricted and limited tremendously by YouTube. Despite it having some of (if not) the best engagement we’ve ever had for a video, YouTube chose to restrict the video despite our objection.
The next likely reason for other videos not getting the views they normally would has to do with the overall economy.
Advertisers are less likely to spend money when consumers aren’t able to spend money themselves. This causes YouTube to prioritize impressions with creators that are the most likely to convert with their audience.
Given the graphic nature of our content, advertisers tend to choose others creators when forced to make a choice.
This means our videos are shown less in recommendations, and even less often in our own subscriber feeds.
When the economy was doing better, advertisers weren’t forced to make a choice, and YouTube was more willing to show our videos to wider audiences.
It’s also important to understand that most creators views don’t come from subscribers, but instead from recommendations.
There’s also an ebb and flow to views throughout the year. Given that the holiday season is almost here, it’s likely views will increase with the increased ad spend from advertisers.
Our audience also tends to be extremely broad given the mass appeal of human cadavers. Unfortunately that also means that not every video will interest every person.
For instance, YouTube is a male dominated platform, meaning that a video on the placenta is far less likely to appeal to them.
That isn’t a problem, per se, but it does heavily influence a videos outcome.
There are several other reasons as well, but this should give you an idea as to what’s going on.
There’s also the chance that the videos are lower quality than previous videos, but our analytics show that viewer engagement is at an almost all time high, suggesting viewers are still very much enjoying the content.
Hope this helps!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hi Connie,
Glaucoma is indeed an intraoccular pressure condition, but it‘a created by an issue with what’s known as the drainage angle, which is where aqueous humor flows out of the eye.
When this is disrupted, pressure increases in the eye, which damages the optic nerve. However, it also can cloud the eye due to a lack of turnover in the aqueous humor, which can be seen during an eye exam.
Cataracts will also cloud the eye (which is admittedly far more obvious during an exam), but the point of attack is the lens, which will also affect the aqueous humor.
Both glaucoma (especially in children) and cataracts cloud the eye.
All the best,
- Justin
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thank you for your thoughtful and passionate response.
Respectfully Lewis, that would be an entirely separate video, and this video was already 20 minutes long. There’s a reason why courses take entire semesters.
This video wasn’t on processed foods, but instead the evolution of the human digestive tract in regards to nutrition and specifically plant-based diets.
It’s important to think of our videos as an ecosystem of content. We plan on doing many future videos on highly specific and nuanced topics, such as processed foods.
We’ll then be able to skip the conversation around evolution and diet, because it was discussed here. We’ll be able to link (using info cards) to this video, and link to the “processed foods” video within this one.
Now with that said, as a teacher, my job routinely consists of teaching students concepts I know to only be true within certain context. There are always exceptions to the rules, but there are still general guidelines we can teach at an intro level that are more than acceptable.
For instance, nearly every Intro to Anatomy textbook in the world teaches skeletal muscle anatomy the same, based off of concentric contractions from the anatomical position.
If I were to tell you that biceps brachii flexes the elbow, that’s only true from a very specific point of view, and is actually the least likely way someone will contract the muscle, yet it’s what’s taught all around the world, and is considered the “answer” as to biceps brachii’s function.
It isn’t a lie, but it’s also not the entire truth. Still, it serves a purpose.
I completely and unabashedly stand by my point that processed foods should be avoided. Now, are there exceptions? Absolutely! However, as a general rule, it’s considered a completely acceptable statement by most every nutritional expert in the world.
I get that you’re passionate, and I truly applaud that, but the point of the video was about plant-based nutrition and evolution.
If I were to speak on everything you mention, that would add another 20 minutes to the video. Instead, I can speak on that in a future video, and back-link to this one.
I understand this disappoints you, but when creating content like we do, there’s really no better way to do it.
All the best,
- Justin
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cocaine is a powerful vasoconstrictor, regardless if it’s pure or not.
Using it will cause your blood vessels to decrease in size, meaning oxygen will be deprived to the area. Pure cocaine has been known to cause severe heart issues, strokes, and seizures.
Pure cocaine still manipulated dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine, and it does so it extraordinarily intense ways, creating substantial risk for addiction when used repeatedly.
The coca leaf does contain pure cocaine, but it’s an extremely small amount. It takes hundreds of kilos of leaves to create a single kilo of pure cocaine. Consuming coca tea or chewing the leaves isn’t the same as consuming the pure cocaine alkaloid.
Coca-cola never had actual cocaine in it. John Pemberton, the pharmacist who created the drink, used an extract from the coca leaf and mixed it with syrup to create Coca-cola. The extract likely contained some cocaine alkaloid, but also many other alkaloids from the coca leaf as well. In the same way you can’t say that coca tea had cocaine in it, we can’t say Coca-cola had it in it either.
Then, the additives street dealers use to stretch the cocaine they do have (baking soda, laundry detergent, ketamine, fentanyl, etc), street cocaine gets even worse.
Cocaine is potent, and extremely dangerous.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Microplastics are a concern, undoubtedly. Still, there are critical points that need to be made when discussing them.
First, microplastics are EVERYWHERE. Even if you completely avoid plastic in your daily life, you’re breathing it in through the air (polyester from clothing and several other sources sheds by simply existing in the air), and also consuming it in food (again, even if you’re eating solely from a garden, microplastics coat your food).
Next, not all polyester is the same, and the specific length, weave, and multiple other factors all affect the amount and severity of the microplastic shedding.
Fum’s cores fully comply with all regulatory standards, and is considered therapeutic-grade.
Does it shed microplastics? Yes. All polyester does. However, it’s likely far less than other sources commonly found in your home. Could that understanding change? Absolutely. At this point though, it doesn’t seem to be more concerning than several other sources, despite being something directly inhaled. If that understanding changes, we would expect changes to be made to Fum’s cores in order to continue supporting them.
Claiming microplastics are worse than tar is nothing more than a guess at this point, considering no robust comparative studies have been performed. Basing conclusions off of intuition is poor science, and something we can’t get behind.
Microplastics are a legitimate problem, but the issue is far more pervasive than most understand. From everything we’ve seen from Fum, their product is far better than cigarette, cigar, or even cannabis smoke.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The healthiest people on the planet are the Hadza of Tanzania, if you remove illness such as malaria from the equation.
They don't follow a hyper carnivore diet, contrary to what many have heard.
They prefer meat, considering it tastes better than baobab fruit and tubers, but meat is not always available, especially for the females.
The Hadza people (males and females) get an average of 150g of fiber in their daily diet, and that holds true for their 6 month old children.
Males eat more meat than the females, and that's because they'll typically eat as much as they can immediately after the kill, and might bring some home to the family if everyone is full, but there's no guarantee.
Microbiologists have been studying the Hadza microbiome for the better part of two decades now, and they have the most robust gut microbiota of anyone on the planet, and their fermentable fiber intake is directly responsible.
Hadza males will eat raw colon, and scrape the remains out of an impala stomach and chew on it. Researchers believe their ability to do this without contracting disease is directly related to their immense fiber intake — not from meat consumption.
Hadza females will eat tremendous amounts of roots and tubers, and are just as healthy as the males, despite not getting anywhere near the amount of meat in their diets.
Researchers from all over the world have been studying them since long before the carnivore diet fad took over, and not once has any researcher classified them as hyper carnivore.
While yes, they prefer meat whenever they can get it, that doesn't mean they evolved eating a primarily carnivore diet, it doesn't mean they always get the meat when they want it, and it also doesn't mean that eating nothing but meat is the healthiest option.
They are omnivore, and demonstrably so.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
True, but without evolutionary context, it's nothing more than an interesting correlation, and is far from a "big fact".
There are plenty of other correlations humans have with herbivores, such as a higher density of molars when compared to carnivores, yet since it doesn't fit the carnivore community's narrative, it's often ignored in favor of correlations that do.
The human digestive system evolved within a scavenging framework, which allows it to consume and digest many different foods.
When hungry and given a choice, most humans will elect to eat meat over plants. This is due to caloric density. However, if plants were the only choice, humans would not only gladly consume them, they would also be able to extract nutrients to support life.
It's important to note that these choices aren't optimal, but are mere choices for survival.
Given that plenty of humans have lived as vegans for decades at a time, it's clearly factual that humans are omnivores.
If you want to eat meat and only meat, that's fine. But let's not pretend that humans evolved to do so exclusively, nor is it optimal.
If you disagree, cite your sources.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Several fish, such as tarpon and bowfin can breathe air. Mudfish can live for months burrowed into the ground, out of water.
Genetic mutations don't always mean that a creature dies — it can give them a subtle advantage that can mean the difference between life and death.
You're of course entitled to your beliefs, and I'm not here to tell you that God doesn't exist, or anything of the sort.
But what I can tell you with 100% certainty is that you don't understand evolution by natural selection.
Tongue movement happens over extended periods of time, in subtle ways.
It's not as though massive evolutionary changes happen (or at least, not always) quickly. Oftentimes the changes are so small, you'd never notice unless you knew what to look for.
It could be as simple as a protein working in a slightly different way, or folding in a different manner.
Over hundred to thousands of generations, subtle changes add up to create noticeable changes.
Evolution is seen everywhere, from plants, to microbes, to birds. These changes can be seen in a persons lifetime.
Again, and I mean this respectfully, you're arguing something you don't understand, and it's very clear you don't understand it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Justin and Jonathan both taught for years at Massage Therapy schools, and to this day routinely have LMT’s, Craniosacral Therapists, Yoga Teachers, Pilates Instructors, Rolfers, and more come to the lab.
Justin himself still holds a license to practice Massage Therapy in the state of Utah, and has worked with chiropractors, structural therapists, acupuncturists, and more in his career.
Both are very much open to discussing holistic approaches and philosophies, but also choose to maintain significant skepticism when there’s a lack of reproducible evidence.
Unfortunately for holistic medicine, there isn’t much incentive for well funded and robust studies to be performed, which means much of the evidence within holistic disciplines is extremely poor, scientifically speaking.
Although, as the saying goes, “the absence of evidence isn’t necessarily evidence of absence”.
However, of the studies that have been performed, so much of it has been shown to be false or irreproducible. So much within holistic medicine depends on anecdotes and belief in a teacher, which is unstable ground to say the least.
For those that believe and choose to follow holistic methods, Jonathan and Justin take no issue with that decision (usually). However, from a scientific standpoint, it’s based on very little, and often times comes with significant risk.
As science communicators with a sizable audience, speaking on such things must be done responsibly, which means siding with high tier evidence will always be their choice.
Skepticism isn’t the same as being materialistic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Respectfully, at no point was the statement made that psychopaths should be genetically modified.
Eugenics is a terrifying slope, and it would be incredibly easy to slip into unethical and malicious territory. The genetic component was discussed, but by no means advocated for.
Personally, I despise the very thought of it. Plus, as discussed in the video, it wouldn’t matter much anyway since childhood trauma is the key.
Also, those that suffer from APD aren’t to be feared, but instead understood. An automobile, boulder, or knife shouldn’t be feared, nor an electric chair for that matter.
Instead, understanding what they’re capable of is extremely important, and this video described what the data shows.
Neurodivergence isn’t something to be feared or genetically modified, but we must also understand what APD is and what makes it different from other disorders.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No misinterpretation on my end — thank you for the kind words!
My point with AI is simply that the goalposts keep shifting out of necessity. For instance, the Turing Test no longer applies since Chat Bots can easily pass with no signs of actual intelligence.
AGI is a term with so many definitions these days, it’s really a matter of opinion as to what it is and when we’ll achieve it.
The problem, as I see it, is our understanding of consciousness, and what a system requires for it to be considered conscious. Our ignorance around consciousness has become a legitimate issue, and not just one debated by philosophers.
Until we understand it, AI consciousness will merely be a guessing game based on measuring sticks that we understand, namely ourselves and other mammals such as dolphins.
However, if you remove consciousness from the problem, our understanding of the brain is actually rather robust. Neuroimaging techniques have improved dramatically, as has our understanding of neural nets and overall neuroscience.
A neuroscience textbook from today would appear as witchcraft to a scientist from the 1960’s.
My point is really a simple one — we know a lot about the human brain, but the thing in which we know very little to nothing about could be the most important aspect to understand, and also require a massive amount unseen understanding.
If we discover that consciousness is somehow easier to achieve than we expect, perhaps we’ll look back and find rudimentary consciousness existing in data centers today.
Or, it could be as you believe, and consciousness is far, far away regarding synthesis.
Until we know more though, it’s really just a guessing game based on our biases.
I apologize for the lengthy response. This happens to be on my mind a lot lately. I don’t disagree with your statements, I just wanted to add a bit of perspective to them.
All the best,
- Justin
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The problem is still the opioid, considering there would be no withdrawal without the opioid in the first place. Replace “opioid” in your anecdote with “alcohol, benzodiazepines, THC, or even sugar”, and you still have the problem of dependence.
Hospitals, insurers, and governments are grappling with a complex issue that is only getting worse. I’m not advocating (nor are any reasonable people) the removal of opioids from the system — we’re looking for accountability and responsibility with all parties involved, including the prescribing health care provider.
It’s unfortunate (to put it lightly) that the situation has devolved into “us vs them” arguments between responsible patients and perceived reckless addicts.
Any anger and frustration should be directed squarely where it belongs — at the feet of hospitals, pain clinics, insurers, pharmaceutical companies, and local and federal governments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We plan on doing a video regarding lectins, and other “anti-nutrients” in the near future.
Put simply, the goal of this video wasn’t to be comprehensive — that requires a book or course.
Instead, the goal was to answer a simple question, which is “did humans evolve to eat plant-based diets?”, which is an extremely common question floating around health and wellness circles.
It’s best to think of our YouTube channel as a burgeoning ecosystem of content. Throughout the video we’re able to add Info Cards that link to other videos.
When a video is made on lectins, we can skip the discussion around being omnivore or not, since we made the video already. We’ll link to this video, and then within this video, we can link to the video on lectins.
However, to address your question specifically, the issue with the anti-lectin movement is the same issue with every “fad diet” — context and circumstance.
Anything is toxic in sufficient amount, including water.
The question that we should be asking is, are lectins ALWAYS bad? If not, when are they okay? If so, how bad are they in specific dosages?
How much does genetics play a role? Does sleep matter? What were the diets like of those in the studies around lectins? Who’s interpreting the data?
The biggest issue within the anti-lectin movement is not understanding ecology, and how it relates to the gut.
Saying “lectin is bad” is like saying “wolves are bad”. Unless specific circumstances are mentioned, it’s a meaningless statement.
If the inflammatory issues caused by lectins can be mitigated through less alcohol consumption, better sleep habits, more diversity in diets, exercise, etc., lectins were never the source of the issue.
Everyone is looking for the boogeyman while doing whatever they can to take as little accountability for their health issues as possible.
If the claim is that eating too many legumes is bad for your health, I can get onboard. Eating too much of anything can be bad for you.
Diversity is essential for the resistance and resilience of any ecosystem.
Lectins aren’t the enemy — lack of diversity is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This video has been the single most fascinating case study in human biases our channel has ever done.
If you scan through the comments, you'll find many plant-based viewers who believe we didn't speak strongly enough about plants, and were far too positive about animal-based food.
You'll also find many animal-based viewers such as yourself claiming the exact opposite — that we didn't speak strongly enough about meat and were far too positive about plant-based food.
Considering this was anticipated — I (this is Justin responding to you) mention how risky it is to venture into diet and nutrition — it only becomes more interesting when reading comments such as yours.
Also, this video was planned and scripted long before AG1 elected to become the sponsor. The topic is something I've taught about for years, and decided to film a small snippet of the information months before the video actually came out.
We pride ourselves on only working with sponsors we use and believe in, as well as working with sponsors that have zero influence over the video.
We don't make videos based around sponsors, although, I understand how that can be misconstrued at times, especially when the sponsor for a nutritional video is nutritionally based.
For that reason, we have now decided to never have AG1 sponsor another video around nutrition, even though they have literally zero influence over the topic.
However, considering AG1 and Athletic Greens aren't anti-meat, it becomes even more interesting to see the vitriol directed towards them from the Carnivore community, especially when nearly all of the carnivore based content creators on the Internet plug animal-based supplements (such as Paul Saladino and Heart and Soil) in their videos, yet aren't considered biased by the community based on that choice.
Now, to address your points more directly...
Anecdotal evidence is valuable indeed, but within the hierarchy of evidence, it's near the absolute bottom.
While I was initially intrigued by the carnivore and animal-based community (I ate carnivore for several months as an experiment), I was quickly turned off by how dramatic and militant they become when even slightly threatened.
The entire carnivore community relies upon anecdotal evidence to support their claims, because there is absolutely zero long term data, robust meta-analyses, or randomized control studies to back up their claims.
The claims around "curing" conditions are completely unsubstantiated, and impossible to parse out due to confounding variables.
The same "curing" claims can be made for any exclusionary diet, so it's hard to not roll ones eyes when these claims are made.
Even if it ends up being accurate, it's no better than a "shot in the dark", and won't be impressive in the slightest.
The truth is, the reason the carnivore diet wasn't spoken about in the video is because it wasn't the topic...
To use your analogy, if I was publishing a video discussing the comparative differences between "Harley Davidson" and "Indian" motorcycles, I'm not going to worry about viewers becoming upset I didn't mention "mopeds".
The topic was on the evolution of the human digestive system, and how it evolved to eat a wide variety of foods.
Just because the carnivore and vegan communities believe that to be wrong doesn't make it so, and I'm not going to lose sleep because they're upset about it.
Over the years, I have experimented with nearly every diet in existence — vegan, pescatarian, ketogenic, Mediterranean, Carnivore, and plenty of others.
I have no desire to convince anyone to eat any particular diet, and considering I'm not a dietician, I also shouldn't do it based around ethical boundaries.
This video wasn't meant to pull anyone towards anything, and considering the amount of equal criticism from both the plant and animal-based communities for simply taking the middle road, it shows that no solid argument for pulling to one side can be claimed.
I say this with the utmost respect — the only reason it bothers you is because of your own dietary biases.
I apologize if this came across as rude or condescending in any way. In fact, there's a good chance I implied multiple viewpoints about you that simply aren't true.
If that's the case, I truly apologize.
All the best,
-Justin
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1