I don't consider myself an anti-vaxxer. But I do have doubt in vaccines especially mRNA vaccines nowadays, and I wish these studies do more than just this.

I have 4 kids, and 3 of them got vaccinated for the covid (1 is a baby 2 years old) for the very first time with Delta. They struggle for weeks to recover, they get tired, they seem to have heart related symptoms. Eventually, those went away after months. The baby has never had covid (no vaccine). I then have never covid vaccinated them, and they have never been sick with covid even though my wife and I caught covid after our 3rd vaccine shots. We didn't do any isolation, we share things and direct contacts with them. They might have had Covid but very mild, the quick tests never showed positive.

My wife got blood clot issue that I saw blood coming out from her skin.

I struggled many months with the vaccines with weird fatigues (I'm normally very healthy in my late 30s). My gut biome seemed to change and I became quite sensitive to some food (milk proteins mostly, not just lactose intolerance)

My mom who lived in a different country got 3 shots and she struggled with heart condition for more than a year, Drs couldn't find the reason why. It was difficult for her to do anything with strength. She finally recovered after 1+ year.

There're many real and true stories like mine, I really have no idea what these studies saying anymore.

I'm having a hard time following your second paragraph, but I don't see where you're questioning the cause of these issues to be covid itself instead of the vaccines?

That's my biggest problem with the "I now have X problem after the vaccine" crowd; quick to blame the vaccine, but they never question whether it was the virus itself that caused it.

My dad is one of these people and it infuriates me to no end that he defaults to "vaccine bad" and not his irresponsible behavior during the height of the pandemic which caused him to get very sick from the virus itself. Nor the fact that he had a very visible lyme disease rash 20 years ago and refused to get treatment because "MDs bad". He's quick to blame his neurological disease on the covid vaccine though, so frustrating.

We all started getting weird symptoms after the vaccines, not after having covid, you got it backward.

I am not quick to blame the vaccine. If you take the vaccine and immediately after you start develop symptoms, then the chances that the vaccine are doing something strange to the body are very likely, not the virus infection.

And these don't get diagnosed with Covid or having Covid symptoms before, it must be something related to the vaccine. That's evidence, not just observation.

I went to UCI, SoCal Kaiser hospitals and cardiologists 6-7 times, a bunch of tests, no doctors could explain why.

I took the vaccines myself, I am no anti-vaxxer, and when it comes to this situation, I don't see there's conclusive studies about the vaccines.

Are you aware that to this day, 30% of all Covid cases are asymptomatic, aka you CANNOT tell that you have had it?

Until, of course, you start to have all of the exact things you’re sharing right now.

so you think that we suddenly have symptoms after the vaccines because of covid infection and the real symptoms started appearing instead of asymptomatic symptoms .

> I don't consider myself an anti-vaxxer.

But you write anti-vax comments filled with the usual anti-vax post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies.

>"post hoc ergo propter hoc"

Appealing to an informal fallacy, and not even using it right. The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy hinges on the fact that one's argument assumes that just because one event happened chronologically first, it must have caused the one(s) that chronologically came after.

GP did more than that and didn't simply say "X happened first, so I think it's responsible for Y." He gave correlative observations and suspected a possibility of causation OUTSIDE of chronological timeline. Regardless of whether I agree with him, it's easy to see this comment having more than fallacy.

> Appealing to an informal fallacy

I didn't appeal to one, I pointed one out. And there's something wrong now with pointing out fallacies just because they are informal? Apparently you don't understand what "informal" means in logic. (Or there's bad faith--a good case can be made here.)

> it's easy to see this comment having more than fallacy.

And yet you failed to point out a single one. You say that I used post hoc ergo propter hoc incorrectly, which I disagree with, but even if I did, that isn't a fallacy, it would simply be an error of fact. But remarkably you find multiple unnamed fallacies (formal, or informal?) in my one sentence.

I won't respond further.

>"Or there's bad faith--a good case can be made here."

>"I won't respond further."

The jokes write themselves. Best of luck in life with that approach.

I grew up in Vietnam, where freshly cooked meals were a daily staple. Getting them was effortless—just a few steps from home.

Coming to the U.S., however, turned this into a major challenge, especially while raising my own kids. Ultra-processed food is everywhere, and preparing fresh meals takes significant time, even though I’ve become quite efficient (a typical meal takes 30–60 minutes).

While this doesn’t fully solve our food challenges for kids, it’s a step in the right direction for the future.

> I grew up in Vietnam, where freshly cooked meals were a daily staple. Getting them was effortless—just a few steps from home.

Huh... I wonder what the difference is between the two societies that allows for this

Zoning and sanitary regulations, presumably.

For zoning, there's plenty of places that don't allow commercial operations near residential zones- hence the push for more mixed-use zoning. Unfortunately, urban environments still have very high rents, so to stay cheap enough you'd have to get permission to operate a good truck or sidewalk stand.

For regulations, there's no way to run (or rent) a commercial kitchen and sell low cost freshly made food and make enough money, especially if you aren't operating out of a food truck. There's several other licenses involved depending on the nature of the business.

The US sees their children as both a cost center and exploitable resource, while Vietnam sees their children as citizens.

The US is a rich country (compared to Vietnam), so I'd have thought they'd have the resources to automate much of the process of making healthy meals, and thus cheaply. Yet here we are.

That is such a huge question! I feel like the answers are many and varied.

For one obvious one, US health codes are much stricter, and your average Vietnamese food cart or street vendor would probably be flat-out illegal anywhere in the US, because they probably don't have the equipment to handle safe food holding temperatures. Not to say that the vendors aren't skilled and capable of serving safe food; just that the US health codes don't take that as a given and require you to prove it. It's why the hot dog stand is about the only iconic American food stall these days. Consider also the fairly prolific business of selling home-cooked food on Facebook Marketplace. Totally illegal, but it fills an underserved niche.

A second factor might be the cost of doing business. Ingredients are much more expensive, and so is labor, and that makes cheap food harder to produce cost effectively. The labor is probably the most expensive part of any prepared meal in the US, so you see "fast food" shift towards ultra processed foods that are quick to produce and serve.

Likewise, US real estate is just less conducive to this behavior. In cities, sure, you might see foot traffic that can support a food stall or small restaurant. But even a small location in a busy city area can be very expensive to rent, and the US has less by way of semi-permanent market areas that vendors can leverage to have easy access to customers. There's a Thai Buddhist temple in Dallas that runs a weekend market with food vendors after their Sunday services, and it's always busy. There's almost certainly demand, but reasonable locations are hard to come by.

Lastly, I just want to point out that fresh does not necessarily mean healthy! Consider salt, for example. If your freshly cooked dish is over seasoned, then you might not be getting something as healthy as you wanted, even though you might recognize all the ingredients and their sources. Be careful to avoid biases in labeling certain foods healthy and some foods not based on perception and not actual contents.

I agree with your points.

While US food codes focus on safety, they don't necessarily equate to healthy food either. Many processed items that meet regulations are loaded with unhealthy additives. Freshly made food, even if it contains a lot of salt, at least provides more control over ingredients and is often more digestible. The challenge is educating people on how to cook fresh food in a balanced and nutritious way. We need to look beyond just 'safe' and focus on whole, minimally processed foods.

As many pointed out here, I think it's a complex interplay of cultural, economic, and regulatory factors.

still using my 13 mini after 3.5 years, the battery is at 84%, still good for 1.5 day of light usage.

Dentists in the U.S. are often driven by profit rather than patient care, much like many other healthcare providers. Over the past 20 years, I’ve seen more than ten dentists, and only one genuinely seemed to care about my dental health, doing everything necessary to save a tooth. She may have cared because we’re distantly related.

Here are a few examples from my experiences:

1. I went in for a routine cleaning, but they recommended $2,500 worth of unnecessary procedures. When I declined and asked for just the cleaning, the dentist spent less than five minutes on it.

2. Dentists seem overly eager to drill and fill, often doing poor-quality work that requires repeated visits. I still have six fillings from when I was young, and they've lasted for over 30 years.

3. For a minor broken corner on a tooth, one dentist recommended a $2,500 procedure (above my insurance coverage) and insisted on treating all my teeth for better care. I declined, but still received a $250 bill for the consultation. My previous dentist fixed it for $120 in cash.

4. My wife’s teeth had no visible signs of major cavities, yet one dentist filled six teeth. Fortunately, the fillings were minor and are still holding up after 10 years.

5. I have several friends with similar stories. For example, dentists often recommend extensive procedures like root canals on baby teeth, costing between $2,500 and $7,000. In one case, a root-canaled tooth fell out the very next day.

6. Orthodontists often put braces on young children, as early as age 6-8, even though in many other countries (like Korea), the average age is around 18. I’ve read stories of people who regret early braces, particularly when the wrong teeth were extracted.

The list goes on.

6. Orthodontists often put braces on young children, as early as age 6-8, even though in many other countries (like Korea), the average age is around 18. I’ve read stories of people who regret early braces, particularly when the wrong teeth were extracted.

This happened to me and caused me all sorts of jaw problems later in adulthood.

> Dentists in the U.S. are often driven by profit rather than patient care

Isn't this arguably the case for any healthcare treatment in the US? It's all profit motivated and you are essentially gouged at every step of the way.

Some dentists/doctors/etc have integrity. They are becoming increasingly rare as private equity takes over family-owned practices.

This is only going to get more common as dental offices become owned by private equity firms, unfortunately.

My 3 years old iPhone mini 13 is still very fast, reliable, and I love every part of the phone. It's such an amazing phone that functions well. The only thing got worsened is the battery, now at 87% even though I always charge it to 80-85%, now I have to charge it to 100% to use through the day. I still have extra power (like 30%) for a whole day. Replacing the battery isn't a problem. If Apple does support it like other models, it should last another 4-5 years more. I have no plan to upgrade to anything as I don't see anything comparable on the horizon.

> Most of the food that sits on the shelf for weeks shouldn't be consumed.

Salt? Flour? Oil? Oats? Rice? Garlic? Black pepper? Most ground spices? Nuts? Beans? Honey? Vinegar? Quinoa? All of these can reasonably sit on a shelf for weeks. I guess none of these are safe to be consumed, all just "toxins".

Or months plus. Flour probably gives better results for yeast breads in the weeks timeline but the average household isn’t buying a new bag of flour every couple weeks.

I do keep nuts in the freezer for the most part.

Depending on who you ask, flour isn't food.

I consider them crazies in the same vein as vegetarians who judge whether something is a vegetable based on how cute it looks.

That isn't most, and I mentioned synthetic chemicals & preservatives.

Pretty much all oils are processed foods. Vinegar is a preservative and is a processed food. Most salts are processed and are common preservatives. Flour is a processed food.

The reasons why Twinkies are so shelf stable are largely the same reasons why flour or rice or olive oil is shelf stable.

Better be careful of those chemicals like sodium chloride and dihydrogen monoxide.

I think it’s the same as “chemical”. When something’s bad, it’s a chemical. When something’s good, it’s not.

I.e. nobody knows what “processed” means, they just know it’s bad somehow.

(Re-post of <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27397900>)

> Salt? Flour? Oil? Oats? Rice? Garlic? Black pepper? Most ground spices? Nuts? Beans? Honey? Vinegar? Quinoa?

Sure, if you are assuming Americans are mostly eating these things daily.

Twinkies are made up almost entirely (by mass) of the things listed above. The only major thing missing is sugar.

Should you check the ingredients again? that's your definition of most?

Twinkies ingredients, minus the less than 2% (was saying most by mass):

Sugar, Water, Enriched Flour, High Fructose Corn Syrup (sugar), Tallow (animal fat/oil), Dextrose (sugar, from the HFCS), Egg

Twinkies are >98% sugar, flower, oil, with a little bit of egg.

You could substitute the tallow with other similar kinds of oils if you wanted, like say coconut oil.

> All of these can reasonably sit on a shelf for weeks

Or for years, in a proper cupboard.

You're not wrong. The safest play is to not consume anything.

None of these issues have anything to do with shelf life, though.

> red meat, ultraprocessed foods and sugary beverages

I also think these are the culprits, and ultraprocessed food is the ultimate.

Has there been an increase in red meat consumption? That seems to be an unlikely culprit.

I think there has not or not much. However, we seem to consume the meat differently like processing it heavily, cooking it at very high temperature. These actually produces lots of carcinogens that add up over time. Sugary food can cause lots of body inflammation which can fasten the process.

coinkydental that they mostly come in plastic packaging, too.

That could be as well, but we haven't had lots of evidence yet(maybe due to the blocking of plastic industry).

By the time we totally understand the plastic impact on our health, it may be too late.

i don't know if i agree that it possibly will be too late—but i sincerely doubt i'll be around long enough to find out one way or the other. i think that's another inherent part of the problem.

Everyone has only 1 life, imprisonment of a life is one of the ultimate forms of torturing. This basically is killing his most meaningful years away.

I can only agree this form of imprisonment for murderers, rapists, ones who physically and mentally hurt people with permanent losses.

Ones can argue that he mentally & physically hurt others, but we need evidence. We should have a better system to force these individuals to pay back or make up the losses. Of course, he will never be able to pay back all the losses, but at least that's a better punishment and I'm almost certain every prisoner will agree to do. They will absolutely trade all of their finances for x years in exchange for freedom.

Without the swift promise of decades in prison, what prevents the "next SBF" from committing similar crimes and causing similar damage?

> Everyone has only 1 life

Doesn't that make imprisonment (the ultimate time penalty) one of the fairest, most equitable punishments there is?

> We should have a better system to force these individuals to pay back or make up the losses.

As you say, he'll never be able to pay it back. The state can't force him to pursue high-paying work, and he goes unpunished in the meantime?

I think what's going on right now isn't deterring people from committing frauds like SBF either.

I think imprisonment doesn't make it's one of the fairest penalty. A set of humans made that up to imprison/strip away freedom/rights of other humans. No human at birth signs these laws, it is all made up by the people with power.

I agree that creating a system to force him payback is challenging, there's no easy way to create a system like that. Maybe something as simple as 50% tax to start with for the rest of his life as long as he belongs to this society.

Personally, I think we should offer prisoners corporal punishment alternatives. Flogging every six months for ten years, plus fines, plus community service, plus you can't handle investors money or be in the c-suite or start a company, and you pay double taxes seems fair to me.

This type of imprisonment is just as much to scare other people as it is to punish him. Repaying the people he stole from is also required here, but that has no meaning as a deterrent.

lol

It's clearly wrong, and it will be a nightmare down the road, period. So you know the path to take even if it's meant to break the relationship or the company. There goes your negotiation skill 101.

I think I would recommend the opposite unless you are diabetic or pre-diabetic. Using this may make people think eating high GI food causes diabetes.

Prevention of diabetes or even of pre-diabetes is well worth the experiment. At least for folks in the US, where metabolic syndrome is hanging over the head of a huuuuuge percentage of the population.

Hiding information from people because they might misinterpret it is not a successful medical strategy, the better strategy is to educate, see if the information will be welcome, then provide the information in the context of what it means.

I wasn't technically pre-diabetic, but did have a few higher-than-expected resting glucose blood tests, and the CGM showed me that I'm actually really close to pre-diabetes.

That was the kick I needed to clean up my diet (specifically eat less), exercise 5-7 days of the week, and I'm feeling better than ever.

Anecdata, of course, but there is no single intervention that has been discovered to improve people's weight and metabolic problems in the US (except perhaps the new GLP-1 inhibitors). Adding a CGM, at least for people interested in it, can be very effective, and we should use all the tools we have to improve the population's health.

I think your approach is that giving more data to individuals so that they can be informed and make better decision about life choices. However, if we look at reality, the data is already there, without experimenting we can already get a ton of data. Then the question is have people made better decisions about their life choices. I think the answer is No.

And thus I doubt very much that with this device or devices like this, the diabetic population will be reduced. In fact, I believe it to be the opposite.