Ice cream is actually one of the healthiest foods in existence, judging by a multitude of recent research articles. There was a very highly publicized article that came out in 2018 out of Harvard. It was for a student's dissertation, he found that ice cream was inversely associated with heart disease. The nutrition department and the student himself tried repeatedly to "make the association go away" with different analysis, and checking his work. But it didn't. Not only was ice cream reported as beneficial, it was actually one of the most beneficial dairy products analyzed. With up to a 12% reduction in heart disease risk for having >2 servings of ice cream per week. This wasn't the first study to find benefits of ice cream, and it also wasn't the last. In a 2013 meta analysis of studies, they also found a protective effect of ice cream on diabetes. You can see the bias against ice cream, as they don't even mention it in the main page. That's despite ice cream showing one of the BEST results of any food studied for diabetes risk. Another study from 2014 showed the same thing. Again, this is a meta analysis, not just one study. They are pooling together all of the studies on ice cream and diabetes and still finding this. The best result of any dairy food studied - here with a 32% reduction in diabetes risk. The bias against ice cream is very strong in these studies. A 2016 study once again showing the same benefit of ice cream for diabetes risk. They say that the study above (Chen et al) showed "attenuated association" once diet collection information was stopped after hypertension or high cholesterol diagnosis. They argue that this means that the association is invalid. But not only did they not try to dismiss any other food studied like this, but this is just objectively not true (see above - there still was an association). They also buried their results on ice cream in the supplementary tables so it didn't even make the paper. That's probably because they didn't like the fact that once again, ice cream intake was inversely and strongly associated with diabetes risk. So you really can't argue that there was some kind of agenda in favor of ice cream here. More recent studies show the same thing. A 2019 paper again showed a lower risk of diabetes with increased ice cream consumption. And again, they put this information at the very end in the supplementary tables to try to hide it. Finally, the most recent study in 2024 showed the STRONGEST association for ice cream's protective effect on diabetes. There was a linear dose response. That means more ice cream = less diabetes, straight up. In fact, there was a 50% reduction in risk for having one serving per day. Which, as you could guess by this point, was the greatest risk reduction of any dairy food studied. Why would ice cream actually be good for you? My main guess is the unique protective fats in dairy, that are abundant in ice cream. ◇ C15 ◇ C17 ◇ CLA ◇ TVA ◇ TPA are fats almost exclusively in dairy fat, and all have unique effects. ◇ Mitochondrial enhancing ◇ Anti-inflammatory ◇ Anti-thrombotic ◇ Lipid lowering ◇ Fat burning ◇ Cancer preventing I've covered these all at length in other content. Of course, this is all observational. This is simply seeing what people eat and then seeing what happens to them. It's not an experiment. That is definitely a limitation. However, when you see the same association, consistently, across decades, regardless of analysis and confounding adjustment, you probably have something real. This is not to say everyone should go and immediately pound gallons of ice cream for invincibility. But... it does mean having reasonable amounts of ice cream is likely good for you.

Illegal Migrant crossings. Some facts you need to know! Operation Isotrope was the military involvement small boat crossings in the English Channel 2022. I served on HMS Dasher during this operation. It still makes my blood boil. Warned the Navy was already overstretched. Priti Patel and the Home Office went ahead anyway. Then it gets worse. In the official Memorandum of Understanding revised 08 September 2022 The Home Secretary rescinded permission to turn boats back to France! No turn backs. Only recovery and escort while Border Force ferried them straight into the UK. No care for the Royal Navy. The House of Commons Defence Committee warned in black and white: “Operation Isotrope’s potential to cause reputational damage to the Royal Navy and even UK Defence as a whole is significant.” - Session 2021–22, HC 1069, Paragraph 79 They went further: “The best case scenario for the Royal Navy is that it will leave with its reputation unharmed. There is no prospect of leaving with its reputation enhanced.” - Session 2021–22, HC 1069, Paragraph 82

In that optimized scenario with immediate supine positioning, calm reassurance, safe apprehension of the perpetrator and rapid ambulance transfer to a trauma centre, survival odds for a conscious young patient still able to speak (SBP ~90) could reasonably be estimated at around 70%. Cardiac stab wounds are high-risk but many reach the OR with signs of life and survive prompt surgical repair. Exact outcome depends on precise injuries and response to care—this is an informed general estimate from trauma literature, not a guarantee.

Muslim MP demanding to know what the punishment will be for the members of the house if he feels they have been Islamophobic. I wonder when they will be demanding what punishments the British public will face. Maybe public stonings or public lashings, maybe beheadings?

In November 2016, Dr Christopher Green, Director of Pharmacy at University Hospital of South Manchester, carried out a formal internal investigation into Lucy’s removal from the unit. His findings were very significant: •There was no clinical evidence against Lucy Letby. •The only thing the consultants had was a “gut feeling” from Dr Stephen Brearey. •He slammed the hospital for treating Lucy appallingly, not being open and honest with her, and failing to follow their own values and behaviours. thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/… Read the report for yourself but if you don’t have time here is just one quote; “there does not appear to be any information that suggests LL is in any way responsible for what has happened on the unit” He went on to recommend that her grievance be upheld and that she should be allowed back to work on the neonatal unit. This report was never shown to the jury. Can everyone please answer these questions honestly… 1)Do you think the jury not seeing this report was just an oversight? 2)Do you think the report was deliberately withheld to increase the chances of conviction? 3)Do you trust the justice system in this country? Please share if you believe Lucy Letby is completely innocent, has been scapegoated and is the victim of a shameful miscarriage of justice. #LucyLetby #FreeLucy #MiscarriageOfJustice #JusticeReform

🇺🇸Here are your top 20 Terrorist Organizations. Can you see the pattern.🇺🇸

"What we call 'the economy' is so important to us that economists have become the high priests of our society. Yet, oddly, there is absolutely no consensus among economists about what money really is." -David Graeber