CharonY

That is not how it works, though. The papers will outline the statistical method in the methods section. That will tell you (if you know how to read) a fair bit about things like how strong the observed effects are, the cohort size and composition can be used to evaluate how specific or universal the data set might be and so on. For example, a paper doing calculations with only three patients is not going to have the statistical power of a study with a cohort of a few thousand participants.You just don't look at numbers without context. This, for example in isolation is entirely worthless. One would need to read the paper and look at how they arrived at that number. Especially the use of percentages without showing base value is not telling much.

Well, fair enough. I probably had a more myopic idea of what constitutes research in my mind, mea culpa. Though there are also many such channels with "hacks" in their titles, which seemingly are good ways to ruin things (especially food). But I think my main point still is that you have to be capable of sorting through a lot of nonsense, depending on topic, I think that DIY in general is not quite as infested as a myriad of other topics.

I think there are mostly slight variations in mammals (IIRC horses, rodents and rabbits, perhaps others are obligate nose breathers as the epiglottis basically seals off the other passage). But I think only mammals actually have it. Birds and reptiles certainly don't. And well, animals without lungs are unlikely to have those, either.

That, unfortunately is a huge can of worms. Mis and Disinformation is rampant on social media and we have seen plenty of cases of high-threat situation where those ultimately cost lives. I am honestly not sure what the topic here is as the issue goes well beyond individuals, even if if folks like Musk clearly are powerful amplifiers.

I think using youtube to do research on any topic is a horrible waste of time. If you wanted t look into Musk's lies, there are court filings regarding his businesses or the long history of overselling capabilities of the products of his companies. Getting outraged over videos is only benefits advertisers.

I think a basic wrong assumption many folks are making is science claims to explain everything (like religions does). Rather, science is a methodology that aims to improve our understanding. After all, the job of scientists is predominantly working on the cutting edge of current knowledge, rather than blithely perpetuate existing knowledge (outside of teaching that is).

Not sure whether that is a factor. It would suggest that food of various consistency would create equal issue. The inflammatory responses are mostly assumed to happen due to the the way the various sugars (which make up many stabilizers) interact with the gut and gut microbiome. But as TheVat mentioned, the effects are not quite clear. The EU has also a generally more cautious approach. I.e. the threshold for banning is lower requiring less evidence. But obviously politics also plays a role.

And to add to all of that, pro- and anti-inflammatory categorization is also a simplification of the mechanisms that are happening. Sometimes, it is an extrapolation of in vitro experiments but then it is not clear whether oral consumption would have similar effects, for example. I have not seen smoking-gun level of evidence of the benefits yet. But to be fair, it is easier to figure out harmful stuff (for the most part). I would not glamorize European diets too much, though. The US sticks out but the trends are not great in many, if not most countries. In almost all countries obesity rates are increasing, but I think in countries with a strong food culture the rates tend to be a tick lower. It depends a bit on the precise measure, though.

There were a few studies back in the days that traced habituation to sweets to sugar and vanilla extracts in baby food and formula. I.e., it is even sneakier than soft drinks, as you basically get folks addicted to sugar in the cradle. It was a few decades ago so I am not sure whether I got the timeline correct, but I think at least in part due to these findings, there are EU regulations regarding what types of sugar (e.g. lactose) area allowed and which additives (e.g., sucrose) are not.

One big issue with these studies is that almost by definition nothing you consume is fully inert. I.e. it is rare to have a binary yes/no response. To make it more complicated, quantification of responses is also not harmonized and there is no perfect marker which we could measure to estimate e.g., total inflammation levels. There is little doubt that highly processed food is bad, but to say exactly how bad is tricky. It is also compounded by the fact that folks consuming it, also tend to overeat. One of the reason is the earlier mentioned addition of sugar. The whole area of nutrition and its long-term effects suffers from similar methodological challenges, which is why there is really no clear quantitative measure to tell you what, in which amount and in what combination might be good for you to consume. We tend to fall back to fairly safe bets, but even very large cohort studies are not providing clear directions.

One thing I noticed is that in US processed foods there is way more sugar than in Europe. Also portion sizes are off. Kids get used to that esrly on and sadly the trend is also invading other countries.

You are missing my point. I did not say that additional funding does not improve outcomes, but I did say that it is dependent on the area and system. Putting money into something does not automatically benefit the outcome. As already discussed, for-profit health units often have more income (i.e. funding) but apparently do not allocate it efficiently to improve health outcome (i.e. the ratio of funding to outcome is often worse than in publicly funded units, even within a mixed system). There were a couple of studies on the US systems showing that e.g. privately owned hospitals and care homes had higher cost, but inconsistent outcomes, for example. I.e., more money did not result in hiring more nurses. Another one is misguided investment. I mentioned digital infrastructure, where algorithms were intended to speed up care, prioritizing treatment and overall save cost. But there have been well-documented issues where certain marginalized groups were put on the back of the line for treatments. As a results, the folks needing care most got it last, resulting in a degradation of health care for certain folks. This health inequity has degraded overall public health outcomes. As I said, the system is complicated, and it is not just a matter of more or fewer nurses. In fact, the issue is not only systemic, especially on the micro scale it can be very challenging to figure out how health care spending is best used. One highly cited publication a while back (it was JAMA paper, cannot recall the author) showed that higher spending (down to the per physician level) was not associated with better patient outcomes, for example. Again, a lot of challenges to maximize impact per investment and depending on circumstances more is not always better. Sometimes, it is wasted and is some rarer instances, harmful. So as mentioned, you do not always get what you paid for, as depending on what you pay into, the money might not go into improving health care. But again, if your statement is just to say that if everything is held constant, having more money is generally better than having less- it is trivially true, but also does not address associated challenges.

Well, that is also not necessarily true in the US, where in some cases you pay a lot for poor coverage. Of course one can extend the argument to all levels of the system (e.g., down to different plans within the same insurer), but I am not sure how useful of an argument that is. I think the basic point is that quality of a health care system depends on funding, but is shaped by the overall system. I.e. some can suck up money without improving care, others are more efficient in some, but less in other areas. Plus there are areas where additional funding even within a set system, does not necessarily improve care. One area where that has been found is related to health equity, where certain investments, such as in digital infrastructure, has inadvertently resulted in worse health results in already marginalized communities.

Direct comparisons are not really meaningful and comment about making money in health care often does not make a lot of sense. For example, is health care in China a for-profit system? Or does it aim to be revenue neutral? Are there mixed elements (e.g. private hospitals vs public hospitals)? What is the difference in salaries? What is the outcome? I.e., there are many factors to consider and especially if a health care system is designed to cover cost, rather than generate profits, you cannot really apply the idea of profit (i.e., making money) to the equation.

You can make that for any other comparison. IIRC private insurance is a top up from the regular insurance and is a tiny fraction. I.e. it is not just the additional funds, but because the public system takes care of much of the basics. Also, the per capita expenditure for health in Denmark is lower than Norway, but as mentioned, has shorter wait times. Again, the issue is somewhat complicated and generally the US is the easiest to identify issues, as it has the largest discrepancy between cost vs outcome. Obviously, investment plays a role, but also how the system is set up.