There is no evidence that lead poisoning, for example, can be inherited. There is some research that certain epigenetic changes can be inherited. The context is sometimes war and famine. But that is 2-4 degrees of abstraction away from your question, and we are many decades away from any kind of causative conclusion to that.

If I were to steelman your position, I think there are simpler changes to point to as potential causes here. Social media. Screen time. Time spent outside and exercising. Obesity. Time spent socialising. The new “permissive” method of parenting and teaching.

You’re going to have to elaborate on what a genuine disability is there chief. Let me help you out:

The UK Equality Act defines a person disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment, and the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

I believe all of those things you listed were much worse in the 70s (with the potential exception of microplastics) when disability rates were much lower. There is no proof that microplastics are causing autism and ADHD (and a thousand other disabilities). What has changed is diagnostic criteria. In the UK they have become much looser.

Why is there never any nuance in these discussions? We can both believe that under-diagnosis occurs, and that over-diagnosis occurs. 20% of all pupils in the UK are now classified as so disabled that they require specialised assistance. “SEND” assistance for this can range from free taxi services to and from school (which recently reached £1.2 billion), to support payments, to special assistants in school. The number of ECHP students (those with the highest needs) increasing by 71%, from 253,679 in 2018 to 434,354 in 2024. SEND spending is out of control.

So what happened, exactly? The average child disability rate in Europe is 4.6%. How did the UK end up with 20%? Did the UK suffer a catastrophic nuclear event? A war? Famine? None of the above. It is clear that categorisation has become EXTREMELY loose over time on average. This does not mean that there are not children who are struggling to get diagnosed with ADHD. However ADHD and autism are a spectrum disorder. It is not binary. The UK has drawn the line far closer to the normal side of the spectrum than any other nation on Earth. If costs continue to rise at this rate, it risks destabilising the entire health system. Public sentiment will shift, and we risk undermining children getting any diagnosis at all.

IMHO, this requires at least two tactics at the same time. 1) Invest sufficiently into diagnosis resources. Stringing parents and children along for years while they wait in the system can make the issue much worse than it needs to be. 2) Draw the diagnostic line closer to where the rest of Europe does it. This will mean far fewer children are diagnosed with disabilities, but those who genuinely have a disability are treated much faster and actually receive the resources they need.

New York spends $29,873 per student (the highest in the country). California spends $16,739 per student.

Utah spends $9,496 per student and has higher NAEP 2022 Grade 4 Reading average (221 vs 214 for NY), and NAEP 2022 Grade 8 Math average (282 vs 274 for NY).

Florida spends $11,681 per student and has higher NAEP 2022 Grade 4 Reading (225 vs 214 in California), and higher NAEP 2022 Grade 8 Math: (271 vs 270 in California).

The issue isn’t funding. It’s also not ideology, since there are clear examples of red states with better educational outcomes than blue states. All while spending much less per capita.

Okay that is weird. My comments were more real life experiences. Then include me in the mystery. Why would people oppose fibre?

I would be surprised if that were true but I haven’t seen any data either way on that.

Quite right, and this is the problem with correlational studies like that linked: they’re observational. We can’t do controlled studies on humans, so we try very hard to control for confounds.

“I refuse to look at text on the internet.”

“I don’t like the messenger so I’m going to reject their proposal for a healthy diet.”

Cool story, bro. I hope you enjoy your cheeseburgers and diabetes. It suggests a healthy diet of protein, vegetables, and healthy fats. I presume that would be an immense improvement over yours.

Do you chug it from the can or add some spices?

This is where the data meets an uncomfortable impasse. Hispanics in the U.S. live a lot longer than whites. It’s not because of socio-economics. Hispanics eat a lot of meat, too. It is theorised that their legume heavy diet might be responsible. Meaning that, despite eating a lot of carbs, they still live longer. I suspect longevity effects are primarily related to the fibre. This might be true in the study linked. Perhaps it isn’t the low carb/low fat part which gave heart benefits, but the higher fibre intake.

As for the mechanisms:

1. Fibre binds bile acids, which increases bile acid secretion. The liver uses LDL to make more bile acid, reducing LDL.

2. Fibre acts as a glucose release modulator. Glucose spikes are responsible for a range of immediate and systemic issues. Reducing overall glucose consumption and especially spikes results in lower risk of type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and atherosclerosis progression.

3. Lower blood pressure (we’re not really sure why yet).

4. Fermentable fibres are metabolized by gut bacteria into short-chain fatty acids. These reduce systemic inflammation, improve gut barrier integrity, improve insulin sensitivity, and regulate immune function. The inflammation one in particular could explain a great deal of the health benefits.

5. The cancer risk specifically decreases because of dilution and faster transit of carcinogens, SCFA production (especially butyrate, which has anti-tumor properties), and reduced insulin and IGF-1 signalling.

6. Fibre keeps you full for longer, reducing the risk of obesity.

But convincing people to eat fiber gets a weird amount of opposition

I haven’t seen much. It’s usually when it comes in the form of vegan evangelism and moralising. “Eat a balanced diet which include meat and veggies” is about as milquetoast a message as you can get with very little opposition. In fact, the new U.S. food pyramid is exactly that. Reception has been very good. It’s not perfect, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the old one.

I’m not presuming anything. They explained their intent. It was the EPA which ignored Congress’ clearly articulated intent.

you’re not only presuming congress’s intent

No, again, read my comment. Congress specifically chose not to regulate CO2 in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. It was discussed and rejected. It is a matter of public record. No assumptions need to be made. We know exactly what was intended to be in the legislation.

I feel I provided a lot of context in my comment and you didn’t read it before you replied because your questions are answered.

I wish to reduce CO2 emissions but the “Endangerment Finding” in 2009 was the most creative interpretation of the Clean Air Act ever devised. The 1970 Clean Air Act and later amendments did not expressly target greenhouse gases like CO2. Congress’ focus at that time was on local air quality problems (smog, particulates, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide). In the 1990 amendments, Congress considered and ultimately chose not to adopt direct greenhouse gas regulatory provisions, indicating Congress did not intend to give EPA broad CO2 regulatory authority under the Act. The SC in Massachusetts v. EPA made a partisan ruling (5 to 4) to intentionally ignore the intent of the law, and instead rule strictly on its current meaning. Since the legislation was written very broadly, they ruled that CO2 could be covered.

We know the ruling was partisan because these same judges have ruled using originalist interpretations in the past. For example Stevens argued for congressional intent re INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca (1987).

If the American people wish to regulate CO2, it should pass a law with the intent to do so. Hijacking legislation which was never intended for this purpose was always going to be rescinded. Just like Trump’s executive orders are going to be easily rescinded.

When you consume high cholesterol foods, you’re likely going to have high blood LDL. That’s just physics.

No, that’s not how it works. Please read the paper I cited. That’s like saying we can breathe water because H2O has O in it. Human bodies are very complex. A strict diet can reduce LDL by around 8-15%. Nowhere near the dramatic decline you indicated. LDL is mostly determined by genetics, with 40-60% heritable. Other causes are related to genetic mutations, excess weight, and metabolic issues like diabetes. Less important factors include menopause, age, hypothyroidism, and certain medications. You likely had a comorbidity. From the paper:

Conclusions: In typical British diets replacing 60% of saturated fats by other fats and avoiding 60% of dietary cholesterol would reduce blood total cholesterol by about 0.8 mmol/l (that is, by 10-15%), with four fifths of this reduction being in low density lipoprotein cholesterol.

Thanks for the suggestion. Antihistamines help when symptoms are caused by histamine or histadine rich foods. Some people have overactive mast cell activity or produce too little DAO. You could also try DAO supplements. Which antihistamine works for you?

That’s very impressive. Dietary factors generally account for a very small proportion of blood LDL. Your diet must have been very poor and you likely have some known genetic mutations which greatly exacerbate the issue.

For me this is a case of picking the lesser poison. I have IBD and FODMAPs give me major issues. This means most fruit and vegetables, plus dairy and wheat, cause major issues. Meat, including red meat, is one of the few foods which don’t cause me intestinal pain, bloating, and diarrhea. Studies indicate a not insignificant proportion of the population have issues with FODMAPs, and they also tend to fare much better with meat.

Most crime is a direct result of poverty.

This is not correct. There is a correlation but no evidence of directionality. It could be that crime causes poverty, or that third correlates cause both. Sweden saw a massive rise in crime following the large migration of Middle Eastern refugees following the 2015 Syrian Refugee Crisis, and they decided to study it. Translation below:

https://bra.se/rapporter/arkiv/2023-03-01-socioekonomisk-bakgrund-och-brott

Most people who come from a socio-economically less favorable background do not commit more crime than people who come from a more favorable background, and it also happens that people from a more favorable background do commit crime. This means that even if there is a connection between socio-economic background and involvement in crime, that connection is weak. It is not possible to appreciably predict who will commit crimes based on knowledge of people’s socio-economic background.

Other risk factors have a stronger relationship with criminal behavior:

When compared with factors that research has identified as risk factors for crime, such as parenting competence, the presence of conflicts in the family, school problems or association with criminal peers, the research shows that these have a stronger connection with criminal behavior than socio-economic background factors. The same applies to risk factors linked to the individual himself, for example permissive attitudes or impulsivity.

They found that cultural factors were far more correlated with criminality than socioeconomic status. This is corroborated by the fact that white collar crime remains so prevalent. If poverty caused crime, white collar crime would be almost non-existent, but it is prolific. It turns out that some people are just greedy. Or mean. Or violent. Or selfish. Or don’t care about how their actions might harm others. Sociopaths in particular exhibit all of these antisocial behaviour. They are unable to feel genuine remorse for hurting others, and no amount of money you give to them will ever change that.