Eggs cause diabetes?

>"Smoking should not be done. It increases the risk of a lot of very serious problems."

Dat memescience

>"Smoking should not be done. It increases the risk of a lot of very serious problems."

I thought Fox was redpilled on smoking actually being harmless. Guess not.

Now if people finally applied this standard to smoking and alcohol that'd be great. It's too bad abstaining from thing that aren't actually bad for you is the new religion.

you have to be a special kind of idiot to think breathing in a hot gas full of reactive organic molecules and their even more reactive radicals, right into your fucking lungs, on a daily basis (which is what smoking is for most idiots), is "harmless".

>redpilled

straight into the trash with you, even /pol/ would tell you to take that shit to /x/ where it belongs

diabetesselfmanagement.com/blog/good-eggs-bad-eggs/
>Those participants who initially consumed the most eggs were found to be 38% less likely to develop diabetes than those who consumed the least eggs in the study — a difference between eating an average of about four eggs versus less than one egg per week. As noted in an article on the study in The Telegraph, the association between egg intake and diabetes risk stayed the same when factors such as physical activity levels, body-mass index, smoking status, and fruit and vegetable intake were taken into account

Unless something is proven to be poisonous like Benzene, all heath studies are bogus.

LOL'd. Yes, but vegans *are* stupid.

Are we talking high protein diet here? Jesus wept I despair at how these fuckers like this play with public science and health literacy. Like the trans fats thing. "High levels of trans fat consumption linked to disease onset. ITS A POISON!!!!" Its not a poison, just dont eat high level of fat you idiot fucks.

I've been eating three eggs a day for years and haven't had any problems.

youtube.com/watch?v=AHAFMFFQlkI

When you think of a plausible mechanism for something to occur.

If perspectives like are taken into consideration regarding smoking and not just eggs then you'd be wrong. There are, contrary to popular perception, studies on smoking being harmless, just like there are studies on eggs being harmless. The campaign against the former has been so successful that you have people performing knee jerk reactions against it at this point.

not him, but what studies have shown smoking to not be harmful?

/thread

I'd say staring at a billboard while driving on a highway increases your risk of serious harm by at least 20%

20%>6%

Safer to ignore it and keep eating eggs if you ask me, even if they are right

What is the "plausible mechanism" that links diabetes to egg consumption?

>being this retarded

Read what I replied to and you'll see it was a response to his question, not about eggs in particular.

You're kind of an easily irritated idiot, user.

Vegan knight, reporting for duty.

Added sugar,added in chicken feed,"vegan knight doing my duty"

some morons linked cholesterol to insulin resistance and falsely assumed it caused diabetes

The ones discussed here.

longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/

And for secondhand smoke

davehitt.com/facts/who.html
davehitt.com/facts/epa.html

Fuck off and die

10/10 you wrecked me

>evidence conflicts with world view
>FUCK OFF AND DIE

SCIENCE!

>scraps of evidence from unreputable sources conflict with majority of research over the last decades
>THE REST OF THE WORLD IS WRONG

DENIAL!

I bet you think the earth is round too

Some people seem to be perfectly fine with lying to people if they think it's for a greater good.
Vegans tell you meat will give you cancer and eggs give you diabetes for the same reason people put words in Trump's mouth to discourage you from voting for him.
The first group is trying to prevent mass extermination of animals and the latter thinks they are preventing mass extermination of Muslims, Mexicans, homosexuals and preventing world war 3

>accept he majority of research regardless of its quality
>not realizing that the "unreputable" sources are in fact major studies being debunked for their dishonesty.

Do you believe vaccines cause autism too?

>Any scientific validity to this? Or just vegan propaganda?

What is this plebeian meme of comparing with two different words: "validity" and "propaganda"? It can be valid and "just propaganda", it can be invalid and not a propaganda, etc. Your question is already retarded in the first place, "Eggs cause diabetes?", Veeky Forums is shit.

Funny how both of your examples are on the overwhelming minority, just like your base claim.

Everything is true or a SJW liberal propaganda. /sci is shit.

People challenging other bullshit are I the minority too. Don't throw down an appeal to majority just so you can win an argument without attempting to dispute the very real science behind these claims and the deception behind some questionable research regarding how supposedly bad smoking truly is.

came here to post this

You seem to think I'm the same guy from earlier. I'm not in it to join the debate, I was simply popping in to mock others' useless word-of-mouth argument, because it's amusing to see people presenting emotional arguments that their habits are harmless.

lol man... you are obviously going to find studies showing it to be harmless. politics aside (and thats a big freebie for you there), simply variation in groups as well as experimental error is going to end up giving you a slew of different results.

ON AVERAGE, the effect is going to be harmful. Because you are fucking breathing in toxic organic compounds and their radicals. This is basic chemistry and you have to be dick-in-ears stupid to not understand the situation.

These are not so much emotional arguments as they are arguments analyzing studies that are blatantly reaching incorrect conclusions about the dangers of smoking.

Again, I was not responding to anyone who posted a study that had any real sources. I was responding to rhetorical whiny bullshit that contributes nothing to either side. Just like you are here!

>simply variation in groups as well as experimental error is going to end up giving you a slew of different results.

Fine, that's fair. But this isn't about a slew of different results, this is about studies against smoking being pointed out as dishonest. That can't be disputed. There's cherry picking on their end and there are rarely new studies on smoking due to fear of it being a health risk. It's like global warming hysteria.

members.iinet.net.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html
sci.med.diseases.cancer.narkive.com/6qNYNZIZ/the-dishonesty-of-antismoking
journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm

>ON AVERAGE, the effect is going to be harmful. Because you are fucking breathing in toxic organic compounds and their radicals. This is basic chemistry and you have to be dick-in-ears stupid to not understand the situation.

The effect is going to be harmful to some people, yeah. But the effects are also overblown to a point where it's frankly Orwellian. Smoking is not linked to lung cancer, various other cancers, heart disease, a slew of other disease, and COPD/emphysema like often claimed by health "experts" yet society is now at a point where all of this is linked due to mass hysteria. As long as you idea of harm from smoking is a minor inconvenience, then I guess that's fine, because that's certainly possible. By the modern idea of harm is a lifestyle death sentence of carried out long enough.

Smokefags spotted.

Argument completely destroyed me m8. That evidence you provided in particular was all consuming and all powerful.

>doesn't even read the links

Do you fucking read? Like, at all?

>I thought Fox was redpilled
gtfo you pill-popping /pol/esmoker

>a plausible mechanism
"plausible" to which gullible population?

>The effect is going to be harmful to some people, yeah.

And why, pray tell, would basic biochemistry be different for the other people?

>Smoking is not linked to lung cancer, various other cancers, heart disease, a slew of other disease, and COPD/emphysema like often claimed by health "experts"

Except it is, and the evidence is absolutely overwhelming, and by the way you don't use quotes when you talk about medical doctors and researchers.

The evidence is overwhelming but that doesn't mean the evidence is strong or particularly valid.

And I say "experts" because many of them, like the surgeon general, come across as not really honest.

I posted more here but there's no point, really. You've probably made up your mind on the subject already.

>Smoking is not linked to lung cancer

>The evidence is overwhelming
>but not strong or particularly valid
wat

Overwhelming as in there's a shirt ton, but quite a bit of it is shitty.

Don't believe me? Look at the counter arguments for yourself, they're compelling.

What's even worse though is secondhand smoke; that's what people use as an excuse to ban it, even though it's harmless. Regardless of whether or not smoking causes cancer, SHS is what motivates people to first ban it from airplanes, workplaces, restaraunts, beaches, campuses...

Nigger, the smell alone is reason enough to ban it.

That's a pussy way of thinking though. Tire basically admitting it's more the smel that's the problem and not the fabricated health risks.

Pussy way of thinking? When did this become the end-all-be-all for whether or not doing something is a good idea? Go ahead and keep smoking you dumb non-pussy. Enjoy your non-pussiness while you can.

why are you baiting this hard, you aren't even getting any real rise out of anyone

sometimes i like to give intentionally fallible arguments some ironic credit but you're retarded either way you spin it

and if you're actually a smoker eating up this nonsense so you can justify your habit then i pity you because you are a slave to your addiction

> Looks like its blaming it on high cholesterol
Not specifically. The key to the commercial is when they claim vegan diets to be "low fat".

High fat intake, whether it be from red meat, dairy or eggs, has been linked to diabetes.

BUT (here's the kicker) in moderation, they're fine.

Health fads tried this in the 1980's with cholesterol and its link to heart disease. Turns out only about 10% of the population had this correlation.

The sad part is that eggs and bagels are an excellent source of folic acid, a necessary precursor for first trimester pregnancy. Many women in the 80's cut out eggs to be healthy, then ended up miscarrying.

> Inb4 folic acid is not a precursor, it's a coenzyme
Well fuck me up the ass with a burning cigarette.

Vegan knight back on duty.

Banning something because it smells strikes of nanny statism.

>why are you baiting this hard, you aren't even getting any real rise out of anyone

I'm getting a lot of people who refuse to consider the validity of the other side of an argument, is what it looks like. I've considered both sides, personally I see a lot more dishonesty from the WHO and Surgeon General than I do from those advocating smoking.

>sometimes i like to give intentionally fallible arguments some ironic credit but you're retarded either way you spin it

I don't see how pointing out studies in favor of smoking that most people do not ultimately see (due to bias and concealment) as a retarded thing.

>and if you're actually a smoker eating up this nonsense so you can justify your habit then i pity you because you are a slave to your addiction

I'm a nonsmoker eating up this "nonsense" because I don't believe in hysteria and I'm tired of seeing smokers get shit for their habit (which is a lot). Smoking is a staple of a ton of writing scenes and even science back in the day. Other countries like Japan love smoking and you don't see the kind of reaction the U.S.A seems to elicit from smoking fears.