I’m prone to agreement however I would also point out publication bias is a thing, and incentives at the HHS are similar to the “publish or parish” dynamic that drives publication bias. Given that, one can imagine how a skeptical orientation could in fact be useful on occasion to insect a sort of reform that’s analogous to what happened in psychology in the midst of the so called replication crisis. Again, with respect to circumcision I’m probably biased, but certainly not an outlier.
There's all kinds of discussions of recovering text from corrupted files that just kind of went away when they moved over to the explicit serialization in docx.
Your conclusion presupposes we buy into the "keto diet is healthy" proposition.
However, there is a preponderance of real data that fats have been demonized by the sugar industry in the past, and HGI foods (high-carb, generally) are a bigger issue.
Yeah, this reads like popular health guidance left over from the 1980's. Back then we though that "fat makes you fat" and shifted to sweeteners to make food taste good. Later, we found out that was all due to the sugar industry.
Indeed, lots of anti-fat researched was sponsored by sugary drink companies.
But the jury is still against too much saturated fat, since the lymphatic system doesn't handle it in the healthiest of ways. So limiting saturated fats is still the WHO recommendation.
I was responding to the other poster saying that the rules were entirely opened up by the exceptions. Other than meat, it's a freak ingredient like avocado or maybe some nuts that has that much fat.
https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_equipment_by_state
reply