Stupid shit in Medellin

[QUOTE=JustTK;2637886]Yes, but why would I need to? We are discussing a double-blind study, not a single-blind study.[/QUOTE]Because you earlier said this:

[QUOTE=JustTK;2637656]Absolute nonsense. Do you even know what a double-blind study is? How many vegans do you know who would participate in such a study? What you are asking for is impossible. I said there is "research". The type of research, you simply made up.[/QUOTE]You need to be aware it is estimated the world has over 75 million vegans.

Finding 100 of them to participate in a study hardly seems impossible.

Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One person's faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. St Paul's Epistle to the Romans.

St Paul knew vegans were weaklings but did not labour the point. St Paul also knew Big Macs made big problems. St Paul was ok.

I am actually changing my (very healthy) diet to take account of the fact the lunatics have taken over our asylum. More dried foods: rice, flour, oats, honey, tinned stuff, legumes, honey etc. Word to the wise: ethnic shops are the way to go with a lot of this stuff.

Here are the Waffen SS arresting Santa ffs [URL]https://twitter.com/i/status/1470519740187779090[/URL].

[quote]No, not anecdotal at all. You should stop using words that you do not understand. It does not reflect well upon you.

[URL]https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/plant-diet-covid-19/[/URL]

[URL]https://nutrition.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/18/bmjnph-2021-000272[/URL]

[URL]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34489306/[/URL]

3 articles on 2 different studies. Not cherrypicking. I have seen no research that shows diet is NOt important. [quote]Here are excerpts, in order, from the sources you finally provided:

1. "A plant-based diet may lower severity of COVID-19 infection by 73 per cent".

2. "These dietary patterns may be considered for protection against severe COVID-19."

3. "A diet characterized by healthy plant-based foods was associated with lower risk and severity of COVID-19. This association may be particularly evident among individuals living in areas with higher socioeconomic deprivation."

Evidently, may is a word you don't understand.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2637854]Actually, his number is low. Researchers have revealed a link between diet and COVID-19 which showed plant-based eaters were 73% less likely to come down with the virus compared to those who include animals in their diet. Meanwhile, pescatarians, whose primary protein source is fish, were at a 59% lower risk.

[URL]https://nypost.com/2021/06/08/vegans-are-less-likely-to-get-severe-covid-study-says/[/URL]

Now who is full of BS?[/QUOTE]As usual if anyone if full of BS it would be [B]you[/B]. Your quote from the New York Post is just a rehash in part of the articles that JustTK posted. But more importantly, did you even read it?

This was attached to the study results.

Plant-based and / or fish (pescatarian) diets [B]may help lower the odds of developing moderate to severe COVID-19 infection[/B], suggest the findings of a six-country study, published in the online journal BMJ Nutrition Prevention & Health.

They were associated with [B]73% and 59% lower odds, respectively, of severe disease[/B], the findings indicate.

Several studies have suggested that diet might have an important role in symptom severity and illness duration of COVID-19 infection. [B]But, as yet, there's little evidence to confirm or refute this theory.[/B].

To explore this further, the researchers drew on the survey responses of 2884 frontline doctors and nurses with extensive exposure to SARS-CO-v2, the virus responsible for COVID-19 infection, working in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK and the US.

The participants were all part of a global network of healthcare professionals registered with the Survey Healthcare Globus network for healthcare market research. The researchers used this network to identify clinicians at high risk of COVID-19 infection as a result of their jobs.

The online survey, which ran between July and September 2020, was designed to elicit detailed information about respondents' dietary patterns, based on a 47-item food frequency questionnaire, over the previous year, and the severity of any COVID-19 infections they had had, using objective criteria.

The survey also gathered information on personal background, medical history, medication use, and lifestyle.

The various diets were combined into plant-based (higher in vegetables, legumes, and nuts, and lower in poultry and red and processed meats); pescatarian / plant-based (as above, but with added fish / seafood); and low carb-high protein diets.

Some 568 respondents (cases) said they had had symptoms consistent with COVID-19 infection or no symptoms but a positive swab test for the infection; 2316 said they hadn't had any symptoms / tested positive (comparison group).

Among the 568 cases, 138 clinicians said they had had moderate to severe COVID-19 infection; the remaining 430 said they had had very mild to mild COVID-19 infection.

After factoring in several potentially influential variables, including age, ethnicity, medical specialty, and lifestyle (smoking, physical activity), respondents who said they ate plant-based diets' or plant-based / pescatarian diets had, respectively, 73% and 59% lower odds of moderate to severe COVID-19 infection, compared with those who didn't have these dietary patterns.

And compared with those who said they ate a plant-based diet, those who said they ate a low carb-high protein diet had nearly 4 times the odds of moderate to severe COVID-19 infection.

These associations held true when weight (BMI) and co-existing medical conditions were also factored in.

[B]But no association was observed between any type of diet and the risk of contracting COVID-19 infection or length of the subsequent illness.[/B]

This is an observational study, and so can't establish cause, only correlation. It also relied on individual recall rather than on objective assessments, and the definition of certain dietary patterns may vary by country, point out the researchers.

Men outnumbered women in the study, so the findings may not be applicable to women, they add.

But plant-based diets are rich in nutrients, especially phytochemicals (polyphenols, carotenoids), vitamins and minerals, all of which are important for a healthy immune system, say the researchers.

And fish is an important source of vitamin the and omega-3 fatty acids, both of which have anti-inflammatory properties, they add.

"Our results suggest that a healthy diet rich in nutrient dense foods may be considered for protection against severe COVID-19," they conclude.

"The trends in this study are limited by study size (small numbers with a confirmed positive test) and design (self-reporting on diet and symptoms) so caution is needed in the interpretation of the findings," comments Deputy Chair of the NNEdPro Nutrition and COVID-19 Taskforce, Shane McAuliffe.

"However, a high quality diet is important for mounting an adequate immune response, which in turn can influence susceptibility to infection and its severity."

He adds: "This study highlights the need for better designed prospective studies on the association between diet, nutritional status and COVID-19 outcomes."

SO Elvis, this study suggested plant-based eaters had a less severe CoVid response compared to people eating an standard animal based protein diet. It [B] did not[/B] speak to the comparative risk of infection in the first place. It would really be nice if you actually read the source material you quote before shooting your mouth off.

[QUOTE=ScatManDoo;2637895]You need to be aware it is estimated the world has over 75 million vegans.
Finding 100 of them to participate in a study hardly seems impossible.[/QUOTE]Now you are just talking nonsense instead of accepting that your challenge was ridiculous. What good would a study of 100 vegans be (assuming you could find them? We are talking about a virus with a very small death rate. You would need 1. 000's, if not 10.000's or 100.000's to find statistical variances that give enough confidence.

[QUOTE=PedroMorales;2637966]Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters... the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does ... St Paul's Epistle to the Romans..[/QUOTE]If you take your morality from a bunch of prehistoric sheep herders.

But I DO judge people who eat everything. For me, it's no different to judging those people that do not respect the lives of other humans. There is no material difference to me. We are just shaved apes, so why abuse apes, monkeys, or any other sentient being? We do not have that moral right. Not unless you are a prehistoric sheep herder. IMO.

[QUOTE=PVMonger;2638037]Evidently, may is a word you don't understand.[/QUOTE]Its a word that researchers use when they don't want to put their cock on the block.

[QUOTE=Villainy;2637678]OK I apologize:

I apologize that you don't have the writing skills to say what you mean.

I apologize that you don't understand a simple [B]very simple[/B] principle: If I quote you directly. I can't be putting words in your mouth.

I apologize that you can't accept any criticism without getting defensive and belligerent.

I apologize that you don't know the difference between 'your' and 'you're' (or you are) which goes a long way to describing the quality of your education (if any).

I apologize that you don't understand that the science of the 1970's (Agent Orange) has made tremendous strides through 2021.

I apologize that you don't understand hypocrisy. I apologize for using a 6th graders word with you, clearly that was an oversight..[/QUOTE]You're not only an asshole, you're a stupid liar as well.

[QUOTE=Villainy;2638065]SO Elvis, this study suggested plant-based eaters had a less severe CoVid response compared to people eating an standard animal based protein diet. It [B] did not[/B] speak to the comparative risk of infection in the first place. It would really be nice if you actually read the source material you quote before shooting your mouth off.[/QUOTE]LOL. So now you have gone from saying there is no evidence to not enough evidence. JustTK is right again in that doing a double blind study, something you say someone would do, would have to be huge to show benefit and be massively costly.

Furthermore given how Covid is changing like every 6 months, what was true today would not be true tomorrow. Veganism may have helped versus the first strains but be worthless against the next one.

And I do not have a dog in this fight outside of saying you were full of BS like usual.

[QUOTE=JustTK;2638112]Now you are just talking nonsense instead of accepting that your challenge was ridiculous. What good would a study of 100 vegans be (assuming you could find them? We are talking about a virus with a very small death rate. You would need 1. 000's, if not 10.000's or 100.000's to find statistical variances that give enough confidence.[/QUOTE]Ironic, isn't it? You're saying for a study to be acceptable it would need tens or hundreds of thousands of vegan participants, but you have placed your faith in a study of less than 600 positive Covid tests. Even if 5% of the respondents were vegan, that means you're looking at about 25 people.

You should stop posting about things which you don't understand. It reflects badly on you.

[QUOTE=JustTK;2638116]If you take your morality from a bunch of prehistoric sheep herders.

But I DO judge people who eat everything. For me, it's no different to judging those people that do not respect the lives of other humans. There is no material difference to me. We are just shaved apes, so why abuse apes, monkeys, or any other sentient being? We do not have that moral right. Not unless you are a prehistoric sheep herder. IMO.[/QUOTE]You're just a regular fountain of irony today aren't you?

You judge people who eat meat the same as you judge murderers, because they are taking advantage of animals, yet you take advantage of the economically disadvantaged in order to get cheap pussy.

For most of the people here that doesn't matter, because most of us aren't claiming moral superiority. However, if you're going to judge everyone else, expect to be judged.

[QUOTE=Villainy;2637844]OK, I was a little too aggressive in my retort. Let's just call it peace.[/QUOTE]I was never at war to even call a peace, just bull shitting around. I am curious to know if you agree with the Austrian lockdowns and the Australian quarantine camps?

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2638169]LOL. [B]So now you have gone from saying there is no evidence to not enough evidence[/B]. JustTK is right again in that doing a double blind study, [B]something you say someone would do,[/B] would have to be huge to show benefit and be massively costly.

Furthermore given how Covid is changing like every 6 months, what was true today would not be true tomorrow. Veganism may have helped versus the first strains but be worthless against the next one.

And I do not have a dog in this fight outside of saying you were full of BS like usual.[/QUOTE]I didn't make any comments on the results of the voluntary survey. But it certainly isn't anything that anyone would call "scientific".

My comment was that, as usual, you didn't even read the article that you quoted. Perhaps reading isn't a skill you've mastered yet? The article and the commentary make clear that there is nothing evident about the study with respect to whether a person is more or less likely to acquire CoVid. The hypothesis which requires a more scientific study is whether or not a vegan diet ameliorates the deleterious effects for those [B]that do[/B] acquire the virus.

Read first, think second, Blather third.

[QUOTE=JustTK;2638112]Now you are just talking nonsense instead of accepting that your challenge was ridiculous. What good would a study of 100 vegans be (assuming you could find them? We are talking about a virus with a very small death rate. You would need 1. 000's, if not 10.000's or 100.000's to find statistical variances that give enough confidence.[/QUOTE]Your lack of statistics knowledge is laughable.

You think 75 million vegans is not a large enough group from hich to select a group to study from.

Hahahaha.

[QUOTE=JustTK;2638121]Its a word that researchers use when they don't want to put their cock on the block.[/QUOTE]No. It's a word researchers use when the results are not conclusive.