In my online experience, 90% of people who straight up attack keto like this are vegans who want to keep propping up the dogma that 'animal products = bad for you'. They often also assume that keto = eating only meat.
Because ketosis is forcing your body to create glucose from protein, which is a very energy-demanding process (that is good), but it's also extremely hard on your kidneys.
It is possibly fine to be in ketosis for a little while (and it can serve a medical purpose), but you should absolutely not keep it up long-term.
As with all crash diets where a lot of weight is lost rapidly, the weight is very likely to pile back on when the diet is over.
I suppose the point being made is that enough time has passed for the study to have been properly validated; as the parent comment points out, lots of issues have been found with it.
> as the parent comment points out, lots of issues have been found with it.
I'm not familiar with the research here so I can't say either way. But a preliminary google scholar search turned up a lot of articles which seem to suggest that breastfeeding has a bunch of positive impacts on numerous intelligence and general well-being metrics.
The article itself has been cited 209 times according to google scholar [1], and this study [2] (cited 400+ some odd times) seems to accept some of the propositions made in this paper as givens.
Anyway, I think it would have been interesting if the null hypotheses here weren't rejected. I kind of expect evolution to have optimized human breastmilk over alternatives for infant development.
A single data point isn't science. It -might- be news, if it was a super recent data point (though, obviously, requires peer review and replication). This is neither.
> "Hate speech" is a real thing there that will land you in jail.
This is wildly inaccurate. In Germany there are mainly three kinds of speech punishable by law:
(1) Defamation
(2) Volksverhetzung ("all jews must die")
(3) Incitement (there are two different kinds of this, one where a specific person is incited to do something criminal, and the other where you publicly instigate a group to do something criminal)
It is quite clear that these don't nearly cover everything that may be commonly considered "hate speech".
It matters because of transparency. Getting rid of some bad organizations.. and then a few that they just don't like. Like, it's easy to say "terror organizations" - and when you look at the actual organizations under that umbrella, there probably is some really bad shit, but there may also be a few that someone just doesn't like. Makes sense?
Fantastic.