Connect with us

HEALTH

Allegations of racism leveled at House of Representatives hearing on coronavirus

Published

4 mins ago

on

WASHINGTON. Science writer Nicholas Wade arrived on Capitol Hill Wednesday to testify before a Republican commission on the origins of the coronavirus, but was instead asked questions about “Troubled Legacy”, his controversial 2014 book on race and genetics, which Democrats noted was endorsed by notorious racist and anti-Semite David Duke, as well as other white supremacists.

“I have nothing to do with white supremacist views,” Wade said at one point during the hearing.

“However, they love you,” retorted Rep. Kweisi Mfume, M.D., arguing that Wade’s presence was an affront to any legitimate inquiry into the origins of the coronavirus — the subject of Wednesday’s hearing.

Former NAACP head Mfume said he was “appalled that this hearing is now about race.”

Writer Nicholas Wade testifies before a committee of the House of Representatives.

Writer Nicholas Wade testifies Wednesday before a House subcommittee on the coronavirus pandemic. (Chip Somodeville/Getty Images)

Visibly trembling, Mfume told Wade that he was “absolutely offended that you will have the opportunity to take this platform and add something important to it.”

A tense exchange has cast doubt on whether inviting Wade to testify at the first hearing of the House Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic was an effective move by the Republican majority, which seeks to legitimize the notion that the coronavirus was the product of a lab accident in China.

Wade proponent of this hypothesisbut his past writings on genetics and race seem to have frustrated his attempts to focus the conversation on the pandemic.

The committee’s leading Democrat, Rep. Raul Ruiz of California, used his opening statement to discredit Wade. “His participation undermines the credibility of this hearing,” he said.

Briefly, Capitol Hill was plunged into a nearly decade-old controversy, though the topics understandably continue to stir deep passions today.

A native of England and a graduate of Cambridge, Wade has worked for the prestigious Science magazine. and nature in the late 1970s and early 80s, by which point he had settled in the United States. Hello joined the New York Times in 1982. and will remain in the newspaper for 30 years.

Rep. Raul Ruiz speaks at a House subcommittee hearing.

Rep. Raul Ruiz, D-Calif., expresses concern that the subcommittee has invited Wade to testify. (Chip Somodeville/Getty Images)

Wade has written several books in his career, but none have been as explosive as his 2014 foray into the connection between race and genetics—a connection that by then many came with a discount.

In an attempt to repair the disputed correlation, Wade ventured into some of the most obscene areas of what was once known as scientific expertise. (His supporters would say that he was dragged into this dangerous territory by detractors who had not actually read his book, but some of those critics appeared to be familiar with his arguments.)

Racial Science was a favorite pastime of the Nazis, who sought to collect evidence, such as the shape of the skull, to prove that Jews and other people of non-European descent were inherently inferior. eugenicists in the United States, similar arguments were used to try to restrict immigration or expand civil rights for blacks.

While racial differences may seem huge culturally and socially, genetic differences between populations are actually quite insignificant.

Wade objected to this prevailing view. Intending to “demystify the genetic basis of race”, he attempted to describe distinct racial groups that he claimed originated in Africa, Europe, and East Asia. He then attempted to explain how the three groups evolved different genomes and how these differences shape their respective cultures.

These explanations have led to some highly suspicious claims, such as that the Jews were uniquely “adapted to capitalism” – a classic anti-Semitic cliché. Meanwhile, people of African descent, according to Wade’s analysis, had a “violent propensity”.

Former New York Times editor and writer Nicholas Wade.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Wade was asked questions about his controversial 2014 book on race and genetics, A Troubled Legacy. (Chip Somodeville/Getty Images)

The mainstream reaction to the book was harsh. IN his reviewThe Times called A Troubled Legacy a “deeply flawed, misleading and dangerous book” that gives racists license while accused Wade trade in “marginal racist theories masquerading as mainstream biology”. American conservative found the book unconvincing.

IN letter to the New York Times Book ReviewHe was accused by 139 scientists (including many whose work Wade cited) of “misappropriating” research results to advance discrediting arguments. They stated that “in the field of population genetics, Wade’s hypotheses are not supported.”

He hit the news again with the advent of the coronavirus, becoming one of the first science writers to speak out against the plausibility of the prevailing view that the pathogen originated from an animal before it entered the human population, most likely in the U.S. wildlife market. Chinese city of Wuhan.

Wade detailed the case for the so-called laboratory leak theory. Average post in May 2021. This article remains a milestone for other skeptics of the official Chinese version. However, many scientists believe that the virus originated in animals and then passed to humans.

Wade strenuously defended his record – and his book – on Wednesday. “It was a decidedly non-racist book. As far as I know, there are no scientific errors in it. It contains no racist statements. It emphasizes the theme of unity,” he told the deputies sitting in front of him.

But his Democratic critics remained unconvinced, while some supporters of the lab leak hypothesis expressed frustration on social media that the important question of the origin of the coronavirus is being obscured.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HEALTH

Gym brothers on TikTok eat dog food, but experts say it could be harmful

Published

4 hours ago

on

March 18, 2023

By

Clarisi promised viewers that he would try the dog food if his video got 15,000 likes. Upon posting, his video garnered 2.5 million likes: “I knew I had to try,” he told BuzzFeed News.

“The dog food tasted very dry. Needed so much water after eating,” Clarisi said in an email to BuzzFeed News. “Tastes like little bits of dirt and I definitely don’t think it was worth it. Even though it has a lot of protein, I would take a steak or protein powder.”

IN This Video, he adds, “It’s for the benefit” when he eats Kibbles ‘n Bits. After grimacing and gagging as he chews on the product, he tells followers, “I promise you guys, it’s not worth it.”

So, before you head to your local PetSmart store and consider trying this approach on your own, here’s what you need to know about eating dog food, the actual amount of protein per serving, the possibility of foodborne illness, and what actually means “for human” label. keep in mind. Experts told BuzzFeed News that just because your pets eat it doesn’t mean you should.

What is included in dog food?

Although the FDA requires that all Pet food must be safe for animals.Sanitary-produced and free of harmful substances, Melissa Majumdar, spokeswoman for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, told BuzzFeed News that dog food is not subject to the same rules and regulations as human food. As a result, dog foods typically have label for intended use.

Pet food may contain not only animal by-products found in human foods, such as bone meal and organs, but also others such as udder and lungs, which, according to the Association of American Feed Control Officials, is not the organization that defines the ingredients and sets the labeling standards for feed regulators. These by-products are considered safe for pets, but not for humans.

“While most of the ingredients in dog food are similar to human products, they are designed to meet the needs of dogs, not people who have different nutritional priorities,” Majumdar said. “In addition, they contain foods that we do not need in large quantities in our diet. If you read the ingredients of dog food, you will find chicken by-product and animal fat.”

While the term “human” is sometimes used on dog food labels, it doesn’t mean much, says Tracy Navarra, a veterinarian at Peachtree Hills Animal Hospital. “There is a misconception about what ‘human level’ means,” Navarre told BuzzFeed News. “Edibles for humans are very different and are regulated by the FDA. The human level means nothing.”

According to AAFCO, pet food labeled “fit for human consumption” not considered edible for humans. In most cases, this means that it contains certain ingredients and is produced in a facility that is licensed to process human food, but is still not intended for human consumption.

However, in an email to BuzzFeed News, Pedigree told us that “Our products are designed for dogs and cats but will not be harmful if consumed by humans. The manufacturing processes and research that go into our products are the same and in some cases even better than those of human food manufacturers.”

But just like human food, pet food can be contaminated with certain types of bacteria, such as salmonella and E. coli.

Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have labeled dry food, canned food, and fresh pet food as safe, there is a risk that people will get sick if they eat them, especially recalled products. listeriosis, which found in recalled pet productsMaybe cause mild or serious health problemsfrom abdominal pain to infections of the blood and nervous system.

Nutritional risks likely outweigh benefits

Dog food does not meet the nutritional requirements of human food, just as human food does not meet the nutritional requirements of dog food.

“The dog’s gut is designed to deal with pathogens, bacteria, dirt, viruses, debris, parasites, etc. that the human gut is not used to,” Navarra said. “We are not the same, so we should not eat the same food. Although the nutritional requirements for proteins, carbohydrates, and fats may not differ greatly between humans and dogs, this should not be the deciding factor in voluntary dog ​​food selection.”

A dog’s digestive system can break down proteins faster and more efficiently than a human’s. Dogs can produce more stomach acid than humans, making it much easier for dogs to digest the ingredients found in pet food, including bone matter.

Usually, recommended dietary allowance for protein for healthy adults is 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight, which is 44 grams of protein per day for a 120-pound person and 55 grams of protein for a 150-pound person.

Protein is an important part of our diet, growth and development, but too much of it can negatively affect the bodypotentially causing bone, kidney, and liver problems and possibly an increased risk of cancer or coronary heart disease.

So how much protein does dog food actually contain?

The nutritional value of dog food is listed as a percentage of the dry matter, or dry matter, according to Majumdar. This means it has between 8 and 18 grams of protein per cup, according to Majumdar. For reference, a small dog can eat one cup of dog food a day, a medium sized dog about 2 cups, and large breed dog, 3 cups.

Clarisi received information from MyFitnessPal that seemed to suggest that 200 grams of Pedigree dog food, or about one cuphad 666 grams of protein.

However, Pedigree told BuzzFeed News that the highest percentage of protein in any of their dog foods is 28.7%, meaning that a serving of dry dog ​​food could contain about 60 grams of protein, as opposed to 666 grams.

A representative from MyFitnessPal declined to help us understand why our math wasn’t true, but they did confirm that TikTokers seemed to be making questionable life decisions based on the information.

“MyFitnessPal has really noticed a surge in people signing up for dog food due to a TikTok trend that was driven by men aged 18-24 looking to gain or maintain weight. The spike in enrollment mostly occurred between February 20 and 24,” MyFitnessPal said in a statement.

In any case, consuming more than 600 grams of protein will not be healthy. This is about two to three times more than a daily amount considered safe even for bodybuilders.

“Excessive protein increases stress on the kidneys, liver, and bones,” Majumdar said. “A person who consumes excessive amounts of protein can develop kidney stones, constipation, weight gain, and may miss out on essential nutrients and fiber found in other food groups. In the long term, we may also see higher cholesterol levels and heart disease or colon cancer with this diet.”

According to UK Pet Food, pet foods may contain levels of sodium that, while no cause for concern for animals, can cause hypertension in humans. Pets can eat dry or wet foods containing sodium and not experience increased thirst or water intake like humans.

“Dry dog ​​food, which is featured in some TikTok videos, can also be difficult to chew and digest,” Majumdar said. “The average person relies on food for 20% of their fluid needs, so eating mostly dry food can affect hydration.”

Luckily, there are other options that don’t require a trip to the pet food department.

Alternatives to protein intake

We got it: workouts fueled by protein and other nutrients can help build muscle mass and strength for exercise. However, carbohydrates are just as important for exercise and endurance, which can provide energy to support physical activity.

In fact, you may need more carbs than protein and people are encouraged to get 45% to 65% of calories from carbohydrates, which is between 225 and 235 grams per day if you are on a 2000 calorie diet. “They provide energy for fitness and muscle building,” Majumdar said. “If you’re feeling sluggish or recovering slowly after getting up, you may not be getting enough carbs.”

However, if you’re interested in getting protein, there are cheaper and safer ways to get enough protein in your diet. Majumdar told BuzzFeed News that lean proteins like skinless chicken or turkey, lean cuts of red meat, fish, lean dairy, eggs, beans, tofu, edamame, whey or soy protein powder are all good ways to get more protein. .

“If you’re looking for cheaper options, beans, both canned and dry, as well as canned meats like chicken and tuna, can help with the budget. Eggs are also usually cheaper than meat,” Majumdar said. “Vegetable proteins like beans and lentils can help save money and are rich in nutrients – fiber, protein, B vitamins. Beans cost us about 48 cents per pound compared to the average of $5.20 per pound. Be savvy and save on fat and bean cents.”

Continue Reading

HEALTH

Mockingbird expands recall to include single strollers due to fall hazard

Published

6 hours ago

on

March 18, 2023

By

  • Mockingbird lot number location

The product’s name:

Single strollers Mockingbird

Danger:

The underside of the stroller frame may crack, which can cause children in the stroller to fall.

revocation date:

March 17, 2023

remember the details

Description:

This recall extension applies to single Mockingbird strollers. Mockingbird strollers are made of aluminum and come in black or silver. The seats are black and the canopies are available in black, light blue, navy blue, pink and light green. The recall extension only applies to single Mockingbird strollers with lot numbers 18322 to 22278 and only lot numbers 23174 and 23175. The lot number is a five-digit number that can be found on the white product label located on the inside left side of the stroller frame at the top of the basket .

means:

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Single stroller and contact Mockingbird to receive a free frame reinforcement kit that includes two frame clamps that attach to the sides of the stroller to strengthen the frame. Mockingbird contacts all known buyers directly.

Incidents/Injuries:

The firm received 13 reports of cracks in the frame of single wheelchairs. There are no reports of injuries to children in wheelchairs.

Sold in:

Online at hellomockingbird.com, babylist.com and goodbuygear.com from March 2020 to March 2023 for $350 to $450.

Importer(s):

Mockingbird LLC, New York

Note. Individual commissioners may have statements related to this topic. Please visit www.cpsc.gov/commissioners to search for approvals on this or other topics.

About USCCC

The US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is responsible for protecting the public from the unreasonable risk of injury or death associated with the use of thousands of consumer products. Deaths, injuries and property damage from incidents involving consumer products cost the country more than $1 trillion annually. CPSC’s work in consumer product safety has contributed to the decline in consumer product-related injuries over the past 50 years.

Federal law prohibits any person from selling goods subject to a Commission Order or voluntary recall undertaken in consultation with the CPSC.

Life Saving Information:

Report an unsafe product

Continue Reading

HEALTH

Wyoming becomes first state to ban abortion pills

Published

8 hours ago

on

March 18, 2023

By

Medical abortion is already banned in states that have total bans because those bans already ban all forms of abortion.

government Mark Gordon Of Wyoming Republican, signed a ban on abortion pills in that state on the same day that he said he would allow another more radical anti-abortion measure to become law without his signature. The law, which takes effect Sunday, bans abortion under virtually all circumstances, making abortion a criminal offence.

“I have acted impartially and after much prayer that these bills become law,” Mr. Gordon wrote in a letter to the Wyoming Secretary of State released Friday evening.

Mr. Gordon said in the letter that he withheld his signature on a broader abortion ban because he feared it would complicate matters in an ongoing legal battle over an earlier abortion ban passed by Wyoming lawmakers.

The broader ban also bans medical abortion, and the measure banning abortion pills will mostly result in additional fines for medical abortion providers.

Both laws are likely to be quickly challenged in court by abortion providers, who will seek to prevent the bans from going into effect while the lawsuit continues. The earlier ban on abortion has so far been blocked by the courts after medical professionals and others filed a lawsuit alleging that the law violates Wyoming’s constitutional guarantee of free healthcare decision making. The recent ban on abortion is an attempt to circumvent this constitutional provision by declaring that abortion is not medical treatment.

The Wyoming Abortion Pill Act goes into effect on July 1. it is illegal to “prescribe, dispense, distribute, sell, or use any drug for the purpose of obtaining or performing an abortion.” Physicians or others found guilty of violating this law will be prosecuted for an offense punishable by up to six months in prison and a $9,000 fine. The law explicitly states that pregnant patients will be exempt from fees and fines.

There is only one clinic in Wyoming that performs abortions, the Women’s Health and Family Care Clinic in Jackson. It only provides for medical abortion, not a surgical procedure.

Earlier versions of the bill named specific drugs: mifepristone and two branded versions of it, and misoprostol, the second drug used in the medical abortion scheme.

But doctors objected, pointing out that misoprostol in particular had many other medical uses, including helping pregnant patients deliver successfully. Doctors have expressed concern that pharmacists will be afraid to stock any drugs, and some Republicans have said abortion drug names could simply be changed to circumvent the law. As a result the final language has been expanded outlaw the use of any abortion drugs without mentioning specific drugs.

In 2023, at least three other bills were introduced to ban medical abortion. In Iowa, the bill was not put to a vote before the end of the legislative session, and in Hawaii, a Democratic state, the bill seemed unlikely to pass.

The bill, introduced in Texas, a state that already bans abortion, includes a host of provisions aimed at cutting off any access to the pill, including making it harder for Texas patients to get information about abortion services or their use outside of the state. The bill would make it illegal to manufacture, distribute, or “provide an abortion drug by any means to any person or place in this state.”

It would also make it illegal “to create, edit, upload, publish, host, maintain, or register a domain name for an Internet site, platform, or other interactive computer service that assists or facilitates a person’s efforts in obtaining an abortion.” drugs.”

Many patients learn about abortion options from websites such as Plan C, a clearinghouse for information about medical abortion. And a growing number of patients in states where abortion is illegal are arranging to get pills through telemedicine websites such as Aid Access, a European service that delivers pills to any state from India, and Hey Jane, one of several US services that will provide pills to patients who travel to a state where abortion is legal and where they can get medicines by mail in those states.

In addition to Wyoming and states with total bans on abortion, 15 states have introduced restrictions on access to medical abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. These restrictions range from requiring medication to be provided by a doctor to requiring the patient to visit the doctor in person. Several states, including Texas and Arizona, are banning mail-order abortion pills, and mail-in pill bills have been introduced this year in at least three other states.

“We are seeing efforts to further limit access to medical abortion because anti-abortion advocates recognize that even with abortion bans in place in 12 states and no access in two more, patients can still get abortion pills,” said Elizabeth Nash. , state representative. political analyst at the Guttmacher Institute. “Now anti-abortion advocates have taken to the courts, attorneys general and state legislatures to further restrict access to the pill.”

Since January, when newly elected legislatures began to convene for the first time since Dobbs v. USA. The Jackson Women’s Health Organization’s decision ended the national right to abortion, with more than 500 abortion-related bills proposed in states across the country.

Some states, where Democratic legislatures have strong – or even unexpected – majorities, are taking steps to increase protection against abortion. in Minnesota, first account legislature in 2023, making it harder for future legislatures and governors to relax these protections, which signed in January by the governor. Tim Walz, Democrat. In Michigan, the legislature has reiterated the abortion ban, and the governor is expected to be signed by Democrat Gretchen Whitmer.

But most of the new bills are aimed at limiting access to abortion. And now, as several states close their legislative sessions, bills are starting to hit the governors’ tables.

According to another new Wyoming law, “Life is the law of human rights”, performing an abortion or administering abortion drugs would be a criminal offense punishable by up to five years in prison, and doctors would have their license revoked. The law prohibits abortion, with narrow exceptions in cases of rape, incest, and serious risks to the life or health of the pregnant patient.

“While other states are promoting extreme abortion programs comparable to the brutal laws of North Korea and China, Wyoming is pro-life, arguing that life is a human right and providing real support for women,” State Representative Rachel Rodriguez said. Williams, sponsor of the bill.

The law is intended to replace the existing ban, which now suspended due to legal action over its constitutionality. However, it remains to be seen how this will affect the actions of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

It’s about defining health care: Wyoming’s state constitution has the right to make their own decisions about health care. Thus, the new law provides that abortion is not medical care.

“Abortion is not medical care, but the deliberate termination of the life of an unborn child,” the new law says. “It is within the power of the State of Wyoming to determine reasonable and necessary restrictions on abortion, including its prohibition.”

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2023 News Logics Media.