Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Zephyr López Cervilla
Zephyr's posts

Post has attachment
"Math Might Not Actually Exist"

• Robby Soave. «New ‘Social Justice’ Math Class Teaches Kids That Math Is Evil, Dehumanizing: "Mathematics... have been used to trick indigenous peoples out of land and property."» Hit & Run Blog, (May 16, 2017)

— Mathematics isn't even real science:

• Jason Rosenhouse. "In What Sense Do Mathematical Objects Exist?" ScienceBlogs (December 13, 2013)

"Is Math a Feature of the Universe or a Feature of Human Creation?" Idea Channel, PBS (June 3, 2013) [9 min]

"Fictionalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, University of Tennessee

"Fictionalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (April 22, 2008; substantive revision September 16, 2011)

• Rafal Urbaniak (University of Ghent, University of Gdansk). "Mathematical Fictionalism."

"Mathematical fictionalism." Wikipedia

«Fictionalism in the philosophy of mathematics is the view that mathematical statements, such as ‘8+5=13’ and ‘π is irrational’, are to be interpreted at face value and, thus interpreted, are false. Fictionalists are typically driven to reject the truth of such mathematical statements because these statements imply the existence of mathematical entities, and according to fictionalists there are no such entities. Fictionalism is a nominalist (or anti-realist) account of mathematics in that it denies the existence of a realm of abstract mathematical entities. It should be contrasted with mathematical realism (or Platonism) where mathematical statements are taken to be true, and, moreover, are taken to be truths about mathematical entities. Fictionalism should also be contrasted with other nominalist philosophical accounts of mathematics that propose a reinterpretation of mathematical statements, according to which the statements in question are true but no longer about mathematical entities. Fictionalism is thus an error theory of mathematical discourse: at face value mathematical discourse commits us to mathematical entities and although we normally take many of the statements of this discourse to be true, in doing so we are in error (cf. error theories in ethics).
According to all varieties of mathematical fictionalism, most of accepted mathematics is strictly-speaking false, but is true in the fictional story of mathematics. But Field recognises that the fictionalist account cannot stop there. After all, why should this particular fiction—the fiction of standard mathematics—prove to be in such demand in science? Field’s answer to this question is ingenious. He simultaneously suggests how mathematics might be dispensed with and how, despite its dispensability, it could be used so fruitfully in science.

The first part of Field’s project—showing the dispensability of mathematics—begins by showing how a typical scientific theory such as Newtonian gravitational theory might be constructed without quantifying over mathematical items. The basic idea is to be a substantivalist about space-time (see SPACETIME) and then work directly with space-time points/regions. Instead of talking of the gravitational potential, for example, of some space-time point, Field compares space-time points with respect to their gravitational potential. The former standard way of talking (in terms of gravitational potential of space time points) involves a gravitational potential function which is a map from the space-time manifold to real numbers and this seems to commit one to realism about space, time, functions, and the real numbers. But Field, following a suggestion of the mathematician David Hilbert, notices that one can do all one wants merely by comparing space-time points with respect to their gravitational potential. This relational approach does away with the nominalistically unacceptable mathematical machinery (functions and real numbers) in the theory itself. But Field also proves a representation theorem (Field 1980, 55–91) that shows that in the meta-theory one can recover all the relevant numerical claims. In particular, in the space-time theory Field considers (a fragment of Newtonian gravitational theory), there are no gravitational potential functions, mass-density functions or spatio-temporal coordinate functions, but the representation theorem guarantees that these are recoverable in the meta-theory. So, in a sense, nothing is lost.

It is important to note that Field does not advocate doing science without mathematics; it is just that science can be done without mathematics. And the latter is enough to suggest that mathematics is dispensable to science. But now the question arises as to why invoking the fiction of mathematics does not lead to trouble. After all, combining a scientific theory with a work of fiction would generally lead to all sorts of false and perhaps even contradictory results. What is so special about mathematics and why is it acceptable to continue using the fiction of mathematics? Field’s answer is that mathematics is conservative. This means that a mathematical theory, when combined with any nominalistic scientific theory, does not yield nominalistic consequences that could not have been derived from the nominalsitic theory alone. The mathematics allows for easier derivations and the like, but enlisting it in the services of science does not yield anything new about the world. Put figuratively, the falsity of the mathematics does not infect the science that employs it. So if mathematics is conservative, we can continue using it and no damage will be done. The conservativeness claim is thus crucial in maintaining Field’s contention that his fictionalism does not result in any change to scientific practice.»

— Mark Colyvan. "Fictionalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics." Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2011)

URL G+ post source comment:

URL related G+ posts:ópezCervilla/posts/7JbqwWNLphhópezCervilla/posts/93pD9pzsyK5

Post has attachment

Here Are The People Coca-Cola Has Paid To Manufacture Health Claims
The Observer (October 8, 2015)

The "Twinkle-diet" Professor (Mark Haub) turned out to have been paid by Coca-Cola to "prove" that the kind of food you eat doesn't matter, that what is important is the balance between the calories you take and the calories you spend, and that what is important is to focus on exercise (a further fallacy), since Coca-Cola sells junk food, sports drinks and shit like that. Did he cheat? For starters, he failed to disclose such conflict of interest. On the other hand, he didn't run his "experiment" in parallel with other weight-loss diets to check whether his "Twinkle diet" was as effective for weight loss, or loss of body fat, he didn't publish the long term outcome of such diet, and he tried that diet on a single subject (himself). Other individuals with greater insulin resistance may have responded differently:

«1. The Twinkie Diet.
You probably saw the compelling story on CNN that a nutrition professor ate only Twinkies for 10 weeks and lost 27 pounds! Except they didn’t disclose one important fact — he got paid by Coca-Cola. Perhaps “Coke-Funded Nutrition Professor Tries to Prove Junk Food Healthy” is now a more appropriate title. And his surprising finding that junk food can be eaten without consequence: perfectly on message for Coca-Cola.»

— Kyle Pfister. "Here Are The People Coca-Cola Has Paid To Manufacture Health Claims: Coca-Cola released a list of the health experts and researchers it has paid off over the last five years. Who are they and what are they up to?" The Observer (October 8, 2015)

«For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.

His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.

The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.

For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.
Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.
Two-thirds of his total intake came from junk food. He also took a multivitamin pill and drank a protein shake daily. And he ate vegetables, typically a can of green beans or three to four celery stalks.
Haub's body fat dropped from 33.4 to 24.9 percent. This posed the question: What matters more for weight loss, the quantity or quality of calories?
He maintained the same level of moderate physical activity as before going on the diet. (Haub does not have any ties to the snack cake companies.)

To avoid setting a bad example for his kids, Haub ate vegetables in front of his family. Away from the dinner table, he usually unwrapped his meals.

Haub monitored his body composition, blood pressure, cholesterol and glucose, and updated his progress on his Facebook page, Professor Haub's diet experiment.

To curb calories, he avoided meat, whole grains and fruits. Once he started adding meat into the diet four weeks ago, his cholesterol level increased.»

— Madison Park. "Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds." CNN (November 8, 2010)

• Mark Haub. "Prof Haub's Diet Experiments."

"A calorie is a calorie" is sort of a myth, since you can't control neither the energy you take nor the energy you use up (only a small fraction of it in the form of skeletal muscle voluntary activity). A further mistake is considering the human body as a one-compartment system (energy intake as food gets in and out in the form of stored energy). Body weight is under endocrine control (driven by hormones and their response on their target cells). Check this:

• Jason Fung. "The Aetiology of Obesity." Jason Fung's YouTube channel (March 2013 - August 2013)
1/6. "A New Hope": [59 min]
2/6. "The New Science of Diabesity": [61 min]
3/6. "Trial by Diet": [81 min]
4/6. "The Fast Solution": [84 min]
5/6. "Diet and Disease": [60 min]
6/6. "Dietary Villains - Fat Phobia": [75 min]

• Jason Fung, MD. "The Obesity Code: Unlocking the Secrets of Weight Loss." Greystone Books (March 2016) [269 pages]

• Jason Fung, MD and Jimmy Moore. "The Complete Guide to Fasting: Heal Your Body Through Intermittent, Alternate-Day, and Extended Fasting." Victory Belt Publishing (October 2016) [301 pages]

• Jason Fung, MD and Megan Ramos. "Intensive Dietary Management (IDM) Program." (Toronto, Canada)

URL YouTube comment source:

URL related G+ post:ópezCervilla/posts/1FdUDEZWBdf

Post has attachment
The saltier your diet, the higher your energy expenditure

«The body relies on this essential mineral for a variety of functions, including blood pressure and the transmission of nerve impulses. Sodium levels in the blood must be carefully maintained.
New studies of Russian cosmonauts, held in isolation to simulate space travel, show that eating more salt made them less thirsty but somehow hungrier. Subsequent experiments found that mice burned more calories when they got more salt, eating 25 percent more just to maintain their weight.

The research, published recently in two dense papers in The Journal of Clinical Investigation, contradicts much of the conventional wisdom about how the body handles salt and suggests that high levels may play a role in weight loss.
Dr. Titze noticed something puzzling in the crew members’ data: Their urine volumes went up and down in a seven-day cycle. That contradicted all he’d been taught in medical school: There should be no such temporal cycle.

In 1994, the Russian space program decided to do a 135-day simulation of life on the Mir space station. Dr. Titze arranged to go to Russia to study urine patterns among the crew members and how these were affected by salt in the diet.

A striking finding emerged: a 28-day rhythm in the amount of sodium the cosmonauts’ bodies retained that was not linked to the amount of urine they produced. And the sodium rhythms were much more pronounced than the urine patterns.

The sodium levels should have been rising and falling with the volume of urine.
The real shocker came when Dr. Titze measured the amount of sodium excreted in the crew’s urine, the volume of their urine, and the amount of sodium in their blood.

The mysterious patterns in urine volume persisted, but everything seemed to proceed according to the textbooks. When the crew ate more salt, they excreted more salt; the amount of sodium in their blood remained constant, and their urine volume increased.

“But then we had a look at fluid intake, and were more than surprised,” he said.

Instead of drinking more, the crew were drinking less in the long run when getting more salt. So where was the excreted water coming from?

“There was only one way to explain this phenomenon,” Dr. Titze said. “The body most likely had generated or produced water when salt intake was high.”

Another puzzle: The crew complained that they were always hungry on the high-salt diet. Dr. Titze assured them that they were getting exactly enough food to maintain their weights, and were eating the same amount on the lower-salt diets, when hunger did not seem to be problem.

But urine tests suggested another explanation. The crew members were increasing production of glucocorticoid hormones, which influence both metabolism and immune function.

To get further insight, Dr. Titze began a study of mice in the laboratory. Sure enough, the more salt he added to the animals’ diet, the less water they drank. And he saw why.

The animals were getting water — but not by drinking it. The increased levels of glucocorticoid hormones broke down fat and muscle in their own bodies. This freed up water for the body to use.

But that process requires energy, Dr. Titze also found, which is why the mice ate 25 percent more food on a high-salt diet. The hormones also may be a cause of the strange long-term fluctuations in urine volume.

Scientists knew that a starving body will burn its own fat and muscle for sustenance. But the realization that something similar happens on a salty diet has come as a revelation.

People do what camels do, noted Dr. Mark Zeidel, a nephrologist at Harvard Medical School who wrote an editorial accompanying Dr. Titze’s studies. A camel traveling through the desert that has no water to drink gets water instead by breaking down the fat in its hump.

One of the many implications of this finding is that salt may be involved in weight loss. Generally, scientists have assumed that a high-salt diet encourages a greater intake of fluids, which increases weight.

But if balancing a higher salt intake requires the body to break down tissue, it may also increase energy expenditure.»

— Gina Kolata. "Why Everything We Know About Salt May Be Wrong." The New York Times (May 8, 2017)


• Kitada K et al. "High salt intake reprioritizes osmolyte and energy metabolism for body fluid conservation." J Clin Invest (2017 May 1) vol. 127 (5) pp. 1944-1959 DOI: 10.1172/JCI88532

• Rakova N et al. "Increased salt consumption induces body water conservation and decreases fluid intake." J Clin Invest (2017 May 1) vol. 127 (5) pp. 1932-1943 DOI: 10.1172/JCI88530

When you fast for several days, you also lose a lot of water, and apparently also sodium.
I lost almost a kilogram of weight daily over an 8-day period.
I didn't feel thirsty so I didn't drink much, but the volume of urine was also notably smaller than usual. I don't think I was producing nearly 1 L of urine, so I guess I lost much of that water in my breath and through perspiration.
I have to add that by Western standards I am on a very low-sodium diet (when I'm eating), much lower than those "cosmonauts".

URL G+ post source comment:

Post has attachment
Statist zombies, they roam among us

«So if Congress or the new FDA administration does away with those regulations, there may be few tears shed. But the late-gained momentum must not be squandered. The FDA is under-resourced and struggles to keep up with its growing regulatory mandate. But it should still be able to move rapidly to produce more-feasible regulation on vaping that still protects consumers. One option would be to establish basic safety standards and require manufacturers to list their ingredients, but not to demand proof that each product benefits public health.

E-cigarettes have prompted legitimate concerns. The rapid rise of vaping among adolescents — as well as the marketing of e-cigarette flavours such as ‘gummy bears’ and ‘bubble gum’ seemingly aimed at younger users — has caused particular alarm. Ideally, regulations would maintain safety standards and restrict marketing aimed at children and adolescents, while ensuring that e-cigarettes remain available to wean smokers off cigarettes.»

— Editorial. "The United States must act quickly to control the use of e-cigarettes: The nation needs to end the long-running battle between regulators, lawmakers and industry." Nature News (15 May 2017)

URL source G+ post:

Post has attachment
Why Are So Many Poor Americans So Overweight?

«It’s a stunning shift in how we understand malnourishment. For almost the entirety of human history, the struggle for impoverished people was getting enough food to meet a sufficient daily caloric intake.

Today, the opposite is true: low-income people are taking in too many calories (and often bad calories, at that) and are much more likely to be overweight than people in the middle and upper classes.
Government data also shows that people on food stamps purchase soda (#1) and bag snacks (#4) at higher rates than non-SNAP households. It certainly seems possible that these unhealthy items are being purchased in larger quantities than they would absent food stamp (or "EBT") income.»

— Jon Miltimore. "Why Are So Many Poor Americans So Overweight?" Foundation for Economic Education (May 12, 2017)

The US is the country in the world with the lowest percentage of GDP devoted to purchase food (including food stamps).

«U.S. residents spent on average about $2,273, or about 6.4 percent of their annual consumer expenditures, on food in 2012, according to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

As a percentage of consumer expenditures, that is less than any of the 83 other countries for which the USDA tracks data.
This percentage is the highest in Pakistan, where the average person spends about half his/her annual income on food. This is despite the fact that food for one person in a year in Pakistan costs about a fourth of what it costs in the U.S.-- $415.

But even high-income countries, like Switzerland (11 percent) and Sweden (12.2 percent), spend a higher percentage of their annual consumer expenditures on food than U.S. residents do.»

— Lisa Mahapatra. "The US Spends Less On Food Than Any Other Country In The World [MAPS]." International Business Times (January 23, 2014)

Albeit they won't eat it all:

«40 percent of food in the United States today goes uneaten.[4] That is more than 20 pounds of food per person every month.[5]
The average American consumer wastes 10 times as much food as someone in Southeast Asia,[12] up 50 percent from Americans in the 1970s.[13] This means there was once a time when we wasted far less, and we can get back there again.»

— Dana Gunders. "Wasted: How America Is Losing Up to 40 Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill." Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (August 2012) IP: 12-06-B

But apparently, the main reason for so many overweight and obese people isn't their poor food choices, nor even the high caloric content of their diet, but the fact they are eating all day long, from early morning to the time they go to bed. That's the primary inducer of insulin resistance:

• Jason Fung. "The Aetiology of Obesity." Jason Fung's YouTube channel (March 2013 - August 2013)
1/6. "A New Hope": [59 min]
2/6. "The New Science of Diabesity": [61 min]
3/6. "Trial by Diet": [81 min]
4/6. "The Fast Solution": [84 min]
5/6. "Diet and Disease": [60 min]
6/6. "Dietary Villains - Fat Phobia": [75 min]

• Jason Fung, MD. "The Obesity Code: Unlocking the Secrets of Weight Loss." Greystone Books (March 2016) [269 pages]

• Jason Fung, MD and Jimmy Moore. "The Complete Guide to Fasting: Heal Your Body Through Intermittent, Alternate-Day, and Extended Fasting." Victory Belt Publishing (October 2016) [301 pages]

• Jason Fung, MD and Megan Ramos. "Intensive Dietary Management (IDM) Program." (Toronto, Canada)

h/t +Chris Dyer
URL source G+ post:

Linked documentary:

• Sheila Nevins (execute producer) and John Hoffman (execute producer and producer). "The Weight of the Nation: Poverty and Obesity." HBO Documentary Films and The Institute of Medicine, in association with The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), The National Institutes of Health (NIH), Michael & Susan Dell Foundation and Kaiser Permanente (2012) [24 min]

Further reading:

"Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease controversy." Wikipedia

• Pimpin L et al. "Is Butter Back? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Butter Consumption and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes, and Total Mortality." PLoS One (2016 Jun 29) vol. 11 (6) pp. e0158118

• Bazzano LA et al. "Effects of low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets: a randomized trial." Ann Intern Med (2014) vol. 161 (5) pp. 309-18

• Larry Hand. "Heart Disease Risk: Low-Carb Diet Trumps Low-Fat Option." Medscape (September 1, 2014)
p. 1
p. 2 

• Anahad O'Connor. "A Call for a Low-Carb Diet That Embraces Fat." The New York Times (September 1, 2014)

• Anna Almendrala. "What We Can Really Learn From That Low-Fat vs. Low-Carb Diet Study." The Huffington Post (September 5, 2014)

• Niraj "Raj" Patel, MD. "Big NIH-funded Study Shows to Lose Fat, You Should Be Eating MORE Fat (Part 1)." The Healthy Indian Diet (September 3, 2014)

• Niraj "Raj" Patel, MD. "Big NIH-funded Study Shows to Lose Fat, You Should Be Eating MORE Fat (Part 2)." The Healthy Indian Diet. September 15, 2014.

• Daniel Duane ( Men's Journal). "Looks Like The Medical Establishment Was Wrong About Fat." Business Insider (October 22, 2014)

References from previous studies:

• Kris Gunnars. "23 Studies on Low-Carb and Low-Fat Diets – Time to Retire The Fad." Authority Nutrition

• Chowdhury R et al. "Association of Dietary, Circulating, and Supplement Fatty Acids With Coronary Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis." Ann Intern Med (2014) vol. 160 (6) pp. 398-406

• Willett W, Sacks F and Stampfer M. "Dietary fat and heart disease study is seriously misleading." The Nutrition Source, Harvard School of Public Health

"Low-Carbohydrate Diets." The Nutrition Source, Harvard School of Public Health (2014)

• de Wit N et al. "Saturated fat stimulates obesity and hepatic steatosis and affects gut microbiota composition by an enhanced overflow of dietary fat to the distal intestine." Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol (2012) vol. 303 (5) pp. G589-99

• Kotzampassi K et al. "Obesity as a consequence of gut bacteria and diet interactions." ISRN Obes (2014) vol. 2014 pp. 651895

• Carvalho BM and Saad MJ. "Influence of gut microbiota on subclinical inflammation and insulin resistance." Mediators of Inflammation (2013) vol. 2013 pp. 986734

• Huang EY et al. "Composition of Dietary Fat Source Shapes Gut Microbiota Architecture and Alters Host Inflammatory Mediators in Mouse Adipose Tissue." JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr (2013) vol. 37 (6) pp. 746-54

• Cani PD et al. "Changes in gut microbiota control metabolic endotoxemia-induced inflammation in high-fat diet-induced obesity and diabetes in mice." Diabetes (2008) vol. 57 (6) pp. 1470-81

• Ha C and Holmes A. "Effect of different types of dietary fat on inflammation and gut microbiota." 

• O'Keefe SJD. "Diet, the Microbiota, Ethnic Differences, and Colon Cancer Risk."

Caloric restriction vs. exercise:

• Caballero B et al. "Pathways: a school-based, randomized controlled trial for the prevention of obesity in American Indian schoolchildren." Am J Clin Nutr (2003) vol. 78 (5) pp. 1030-8

Keith SW et al. "Putative contributors to the secular increase in obesity: exploring the roads less traveled." Int J Obes (Lond) (2006) vol. 30 (11) pp. 1585-94

URL related G+ posts:ópezCervilla/posts/1FdUDEZWBdfópezCervilla/posts/YRHzK5WXMgoópezCervilla/posts/gcULBve6uMrópezCervilla/posts/Mac69LUoEeNópezCervilla/posts/dmUJriwdsc6

Post has attachment
El problema del cálculo económico en las economías socialistas

Los "catálogos de precios" utilizados en la Unión Soviética u otros países del Bloque Socialista de hecho supusieron una gran mejoría con respecto a la situación anterior, lo cual permitió prolongar la viabilidad de su precario sistema económico durante décadas (esto es, sin esos listados de precios, las economías socialistas habrían colapsado mucho antes). Los precios fijados de esta manera de hecho los copiaban de los catálogos de los países occidentales (aplicando la conversión de divisa que juzgaran conveniente). Al no existir prácticamente ni el libre comercio ninguna economía de mercado, los responsables de la producción de las economías socialistas carecían de método eficaz alguno de estimar el valor de los artículos producidos por su sistema planificado de producción y distribución de bienes de consumo (y servicios).

En un mercado más o menos libre, el precio oscila en función de la oferta y la demanda. Cuando un producto muy demandado empieza a escasear, su valor aumenta en el mercado, lo que sirve de incentivo a productores y distribuidores para poner en circulación mayor cantidad de producto. Su aumento de precio es indicativo de la necesidad que hay, o valor que se le da a ese producto en dicha economía. Los precios son la herramienta que permite ajustar el volumen de producción de cada producto en función de las necesidades, así como mejorar la eficiencia de su producción mediante la introducción de modificaciones conn la finalidad de mejorar el margen de beneficios mediante la reducción de los costes de producción, esto es, la reducción de la suma total de precios de su producción (o bien introduciendo cambios para aumentar el valor subjetivo del producto en el mercado).

Por el contrario, una economía socialista pura no está dotada de ningún mecanismo eficaz que indique a los productores los volúmenes de producción de cada producto, y el orden de prioridad para producir un producto u otro (en una economía de mercado, esto lo indicaría el margen de beneficio obtenido en función de lo que se produzca).

A este obstáculo aparentemente insalvable de los sistemas económicos socialistas "puros" se lo conoce como el problema del "cálculo económico" (descrito con detalle por economistas de la Escuela Austríaca de economía a lo largo del siglo XX):

"Economic calculation problem." Wikipedia

"Economic calculation problem." Mises Wiki

"Cálculo económico." Wikipediaálculo_económico

"Debate sobre el cálculo económico en el socialismo." Wikipediaálculo_económico_en_el_socialismo

• Rothbard, Murray N. "The End of Socialism and the Calculation Debate Revisited." The Review of Austrian Economics (1991) vol. 5 (2) pp. 51-76 DOI:10.1007/BF02426928

• Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. "Socialism: A Property or Knowledge Problem?" The Review of Austrian Economics (1996) vol. 9 (1) pp. 143-149 DOI:10.1007/BF01101888

• Bradley Jr, Robert. "Market Socialism: A Subjectivist Evaluation." The Journal of Libertarian Studies (Winter 1981) vol. 5 (1)

• Hayek, FA. "The Use of Knowledge in Society." The American Economic Review (September 1945) vol. 35 (4) pp. 519-530

• Gordon, David. "Gray's Anatomy: Selected Writings." Mises Daily (September 10, 2009)

• von Mises, Ludwig. "Die Wirtschaftsrechnung im sozialistischen Gemeinwesen." Archiv für Sozialwissenschaften 47 (1920) ; "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth." Translated from German into English by S Adler. Ludwig von Mises Institute (1990, 2008)

• von Mises, Ludwig. "Human Action." (1940-1949) Part Five: "Social Cooperation Without a Market." Chapter XXVI: "The Impossibility of Economic Calculation under Socialism."

Post has attachment
Winston Churchill

• Adam Young, "The Real Churchill." Mises Daily (February 27, 2004)

• Ralph Raico, "Rethinking Churchill." Mises Daily (November 14, 2008)

• Ralph Raico, "Great Wars and Great Leaders: A Libertarian Rebuttal." Ludwig von Mises Institute (2010)

• Yuri N Maltsev, "The Dr. Richard J. Kossmann Lecture: Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill and the Destruction of Europe." 2012 Mises Institute Supporters Summit: "The Truth About War: A revisionist Approach." The Mises Institute's Thirtieth Anniversary Celebration (Callaway Gardens, Georgia, October 27, 2012) [21 min]

• Patrick J Buchanan (guest) and Tom E Woods Jr (host), "Pat Buchanan on Winston Churchill." The Tom Woods Show (May 7, 2014) ep. 152 [33 min]

• Patrick J Buchanan, «Churchill, Hitler and "the Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World.» Crown (May 2008),_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War
Audible book [except 126 min]:


• Robert Higgs, «Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War".» Foundation for Economic Education (June 11, 2009)

On Winston Churchill:

«In 1908, he introduced the Trade Boards Bill setting up the first minimum wages in Britain.[75] In 1909, he set up Labour Exchanges to help unemployed people find work.[76] He helped draft the first unemployment pension legislation, the National Insurance Act of 1911.[77] As a supporter of eugenics, he participated in the drafting of the Mental Deficiency Act 1913; however, the Act, in the form eventually passed, rejected his preferred method of sterilisation of the feeble-minded in favour of their confinement in institutions.[78]

Churchill also assisted in passing the People's Budget,[79] becoming President of the Budget League, an organisation set up in response to the opposition's Budget Protest League.[80] The budget included the introduction of new taxes on the wealthy to allow for the creation of new social welfare programmes. After the budget bill was passed by the Commons in 1909 it was vetoed by the House of Lords. The Liberals then fought and won two general elections in January and December 1910 to gain a mandate for their reforms. The budget was passed after the first election, and after the second election the Parliament Act 1911, for which Churchill also campaigned, was passed. In 1910, he was promoted to Home Secretary. His term was controversial after his responses to the Cambrian Colliery dispute, the Siege of Sidney Street and the suffragettes.

The People's Budget attempted to introduce a heavy tax on land value, inspired by the economist and philosopher Henry George.[81] In 1909, Churchill made several speeches with strong Georgist rhetoric,[82] stating that land ownership is at the source of all monopoly.[83] Furthermore, Churchill emphasises the difference between productive investment in capital (which he supports) and land speculation which gains an unearned income and has only negative consequences to society at large ("an evil").[84]
In 1919, Churchill sanctioned the use of tear gas on Kurdish tribesmen in Iraq.[109] Though the British did consider the use of non-lethal poison gas in putting down Kurdish rebellions, it was not used, as conventional bombing was considered effective.[109]
In 1923, Churchill acted as a paid consultant for Burmah Oil (now BP plc) to lobby the British government to allow Burmah to have exclusive rights to Persian (Iranian) oil resources, which were successfully granted.[115]
Later economists, as well as people at the time, also criticised Churchill's budget measures. These were seen as assisting the generally prosperous rentier banking and salaried classes (to which Churchill and his associates generally belonged) at the expense of manufacturers and exporters which were known then to be suffering from imports and from competition in traditional export markets,[128] and as paring the Armed Forces, and especially the Royal Navy, too heavily.[129]
Churchill opposed Gandhi's peaceful disobedience revolt and the Indian Independence movement in the 1920s and 30s, arguing that the Round Table Conference "was a frightful prospect".[132] In response to Gandhi's civil disobedience campaign, Churchill proclaimed in 1920 that Gandhi "ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back."[133][134] Later reports indicate that Churchill favoured letting Gandhi die if he went on a hunger strike.[135] During the first half of the 1930s, Churchill was outspoken in his opposition to granting Dominion status to India. He was a founder of the India Defence League, a group dedicated to the preservation of British power in India. Churchill brooked no moderation. "The truth is," he declared in 1930, "that Gandhi-ism and everything it stands for will have to be grappled with and crushed."[136]
There has been debate over Churchill's alleged culpability in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Indians during the Bengal famine of 1943.[144][145][146][147] While some commentators point to the disruption of the traditional marketing system and maladministration at the provincial level,[148] Arthur Herman, author of Churchill and Gandhi, contends, 'The real cause was the fall of Burma to the Japanese, which cut off India's main supply of rice imports when domestic sources fell short ... [though] it is true that Churchill opposed diverting food supplies and transports from other theatres to India to cover the shortfall: this was wartime.'[149] In response to an urgent request by the Secretary of State for India, Leo Amery, and Viceroy of India, Wavell, to release food stocks for India, Churchill responded with a telegram to Wavell asking, if food was so scarce, "why Gandhi hadn't died yet."[150] In July 1940, newly in office, he welcomed reports of the emerging conflict between the Muslim League and the Indian Congress, hoping "it would be bitter and bloody".[136]
Between 13–15 February 1945, British and US bombers attacked the German city of Dresden, which was crowded with German wounded and refugees.[247] There were an unknown number of refugees in Dresden, so historians Matthias Neutzner, Götz Bergander and Frederick Taylor have used historical sources and deductive reasoning to estimate that the number of refugees in the city and surrounding suburbs was around 200,000 or less on the first night of the bombing. Because of the cultural importance of the city, and of the number of civilian casualties close to the end of the war, this remains one of the most controversial Western Allied actions of the war. Following the bombing Churchill stated in a top-secret telegram:

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed ... I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive.[248]
In domestic affairs, various reforms were introduced such as the Mines and Quarries Act of 1954 and the Housing Repairs and Rent Act of 1955. The former measure consolidated legislation dealing with the employment of young persons and women in mines and quarries, together with safety, health, and welfare. The latter measure extended previous housing Acts, and set out details in defining housing units as "unfit for human habitation."[289] In addition, tax allowances were raised,[290] construction of council housing was accelerated, and pensions and national assistance benefits were increased.[291]
Housing was an issue the Conservatives were widely recognised to have made their own, after the Churchill government of the early 1950s, with Harold Macmillan as Minister for Housing, gave housing construction far higher political priority than it had received under the Attlee administration (where housing had been attached to the portfolio of Health Minister Aneurin Bevan, whose attention was concentrated on his responsibilities for the National Health Service). Macmillan had accepted Churchill's challenge to meet the latter's ambitious public commitment to build 300,000 new homes a year, and achieved the target a year ahead of schedule.[293][294]
In Malaya, a rebellion against British rule had been in progress since 1948. Once again, Churchill's government inherited a crisis, and Churchill chose to use direct military action against those in rebellion while attempting to build an alliance with those who were not.[73][296]
Churchill asked in vain for a US military commitment to support Britain's position in Egypt and Middle East (where the Truman Administration had recently pressured Attlee not to intervene against Mossadeq in Iran);»

"Winston Churchill." Wikipedia

«There are two patterns for the realization of socialism.

The first pattern (we may call it the Lenin or the Russian pattern) is purely bureaucratic. All plants, shops, and farms are formally nationalized (verstaatlicht); they are departments of the government operated by civil servants. Every unit of the apparatus of production stands in the same relation to the superior central organization as does a local post office to the office of the postmaster general.

The second pattern [of socialism] (we may call it the Hindenburg or German pattern) nominally and seemingly preserves private ownership of the means of production, and keeps the appearance of ordinary markets, prices, wages, and interest rates. These are, however, no longer entrepreneurs, but only shop managers (Betriebsführer in the terminology of the Nazi legislation). These shop managers are seemingly instrumental in the conduct of the enterprises entrusted to them; they buy and sell, hire and discharge workers and remunerate their services, contract debts and pay interest and amortization. But in all their activities they are bound to obey unconditionally the orders issued by the government's supreme office of production management. This office (the Reichswirtschaftsministerium in Nazi Germany) tells the shop managers what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. It assigns every worker to his job and fixes his wages. It decrees to whom and on what terms the capitalists must entrust their funds. Market exchange is merely a sham. All the wages, prices, and interest rates are fixed by the government; they are wages, prices, and interest rates in appearance only; in fact they are merely quantitative terms in the government's orders determining each citizen's job, income, consumption, and standard of living. The government directs all production activities. The shop managers are subject to the government, not the consumers' demand and the market's price structure. This is socialism under the outward guise of the terminology of capitalism. Some labels of the capitalistic market economy are retained, but they signify something entirely different from what they mean in the market economy.»

— Ludwig von Mises, "Human Action." Part Six: The Hampered Market Economy. Chapter XXVII: The Government and the Market. 2. The Intervention (1940-1949)

Post has attachment
Michael Malice, Phoney Egoist

Michael Malice, as an Egoist (what he claims to be) is a disgrace: He considers the widespread recognition of human rights as a great achievement of modern civilisation (a collectivist idea), he supports American exceptionalism, he's a patriot who downplays the damage caused by the US government over the last two hundred years, and apparently he truly believes we live in the "best" (or the most desirable) of all possible worlds:

• Michael Malice and Tom E Woods Jr (debaters), Gene Epstein (moderator). "Michael Malice and Tom Debate Hamilton in NYC." The Tom Woods Show (December 9, 2015) ep. 551 [89 min]

[pp. 244-248 / pp. 101-102 / pp. 109-111]
«A "sense of right" and "law-abiding mind" of such a sort is so firmly planted in people’s heads that the most revolutionary persons of our days want to subject us to a new "sacred law," the "law of society," the law of mankind, the "right of all," and the like. The right of "all" is to go before my right. As a right of all it would indeed be my right among the rest, since I, with the rest, am included in all; but that it is at the same time a right of others, or even of all others, does not move me to its upholding. Not as a right of all will I defend it, but as my right; and then every other may see to it how he shall likewise maintain it for himself. The right of all (e. g., to eat) is a right of every individual. Let each keep this right unabridged for himself, then all exercise it spontaneously; let him not take care for all though – let him not grow zealous for it as for a right of all.

But the social reformers preach to us a "law of society". There the individual becomes society’s slave, and is in the right only when society makes him out in the right, i.e. when he lives according to society’s statutes and so is – loyal. Whether I am loyal under a despotism or in a "society" àla Weitling, it is the same absence of right in so far as in both cases I have not my right but foreign right.

In consideration of right the question is always asked, "What or who gives me the right to it?" Answer: God, love, reason, nature, humanity, etc. No, only your might, your power gives you the right (your reason, e. g., may give it to you).

Communism, which assumes that men "have equal rights by nature," contradicts its own proposition till it comes to this, that men have no right at all by nature. For it is not willing to recognize, e. g., that parents have "by nature" rights as against their children, or the children as against the parents: it abolishes the family. Nature gives parents, brothers, etc., no right at all. Altogether, this entire revolutionary or Babouvist principle rests on a religious, i. e., false, view of things. Who can ask after "right" if he does not occupy the religious standpoint himself? Is not "right" a religious concept, i.e. something sacred? Why, "equality of rights", as the Revolution propounded it, is only another name for "Christian equality," the "equality of the brethren," "of God’s children," "of Christians"; in short, fraternité.
When the Revolution stamped equality as a "right," it took flight into the religious domain, into the region of the sacred, of the ideal. Hence, since then, the fight for the "sacred, inalienable rights of man." Against the "eternal rights of man" the "well-earned rights of the established order" are quite naturally, and with equal right, brought to bear: right against right, where of course one is decried by the other as "wrong." This has been the contest of rights since the Revolution.

You want to be "in the right" as against the rest. That you cannot; as against them you remain forever "in the wrong"; for they surely would not be your opponents if they were not in "their right" too; they will always make you out "in the wrong." But, as against the right of the rest, yours is a higher, greater, more powerful right, is it not? No such thing! Your right is not more powerful if you are not more powerful. Have Chinese subjects a right to freedom? Just bestow it on them, and then look how far you have gone wrong in your attempt: because they do not know how to use freedom they have no right to it, or, in clearer terms, because they have not freedom they have not the right to it. Children have no right to the condition of majority because they are not of age, i.e. because they are children. Peoples that let themselves be kept in nonage have no rights to the condition of majority; if they ceased to be in nonage, then only would they have the right to be of age. This means nothing else than "What you have the power to be you have the right to." I derive all right and all warrant from me ; I am entitled to everything that I have in my power. I am entitled to overthrow Zeus, Jehovah, God, etc., if I can ; if I cannot, then these gods will always remain in the right and in power as against me, and what I do will be to fear their right and their power in impotent "god-fearingness," to keep their commandments and believe that I do right in everything that I do according to their right, about as the Russian boundary-sentinels think themselves rightfully entitled to shoot dead the suspicious persons who are escaping, since they murder "by superior authority," i.e. "with right." But I am entitled by myself to murder if I myself do not forbid it to myself, if I myself do not fear murder as a "wrong." This view of things lies at the foundation of Chamisso’s poem, "The Valley of Murder," where the gray-haired Indian murderer compels reverence from the white man whose brethren he has murdered. The only thing I am not entitled to is what I do not do with a free cheer, i. e. what I do not entitle myself to.
[pp. 319-322 / pp. 125-126 / pp. 138-139]
He who refuses to spend his powers for such limited societies as family, party, nation, is still always longing for a worthier society, and thinks he has found the true object of love, perhaps, in "human society" or "mankind," to sacrifice himself to which constitutes his honor; from now on he "lives for and serves mankind."

People is the name of the body, State of the spirit, of that ruling person that has hitherto suppressed me. Some have wanted to transfigure peoples and States by broadening them out to "mankind" and "general reason"; but servitude would only become still more intense with this widening, and philanthropists and humanitarians are as absolute masters as politicians and diplomats.

Modern critics inveigh against religion because it sets God, the divine, moral, etc., outside of man, or makes them something objective, in opposition to which the critics rather transfer these very subjects into man. But those critics none the less fall into the proper error of religion, to give man a "destiny," in that they too want to have him divine, human, and the like: morality, freedom and humanity, etc., are his essence. And, like religion, politics too wanted to "educate" man, to bring him to the realization of his "essence," his "destiny," to make something out of him,—to wit, a "true man," the one in the form of the "true believer," the other in that of the "true citizen or subject." In fact, it comes to the same whether one calls the destiny the divine or human.
[pp. 331-332 / p. 129 / p. 143]
Private property lives by grace of the law. Only in the law has it its warrant – for possession is not yet property, it becomes "mine" only by assent of the law; it is not a fact, not un fait as Proudhon thinks, but a fiction, a thought. This is legal property, legitimate property, guarantied property. It is mine not through me but through the – law.
[pp. 412-413 / pp. 154-155 / pp. 174-175]
If community is once a need of man, and he finds himself furthered by it in his aims, then very soon, because it has become his principle, it prescribes to him its laws too, the laws of – society. The principle of men exalts itself into a sovereign power over them, becomes their supreme essence, their God, and, as such – law-giver. Communism gives this principle the strictest effect, and Christianity is the religion of society, for, as Feuerbach rightly says, although he does not mean it rightly, love is the essence of man; e. g., the essence of society or of societary (Communistic) man. All religion is a cult of society, this principle by which societary (cultivated) man is dominated; neither is any god an ego’s exclusive god, but always a society’s or community’s, be it of the society, "family" (Lar, Penates) or of a "people" ("national god") or of "all men" ("he is a Father of all men").»

— Max Stirner. "Der Einzige und Sein Eigenthum." Leipzig: Otto Wigand 1845 [Oktober 1844] ; Steven T Byington (translation into English). "The Ego and His Own." Benj. R. Tucker, Publisher (1907)

«An interesting article in The Atlantic [1] talks about studies showing that liberals think in terms of fairness while conservatives think in terms of morality. So if you want to persuade someone on the other team, you need to speak in their language.
As I often say, fairness is a concept invented so children and idiots can participate in debates. Fairness is a subjective illusion. It isn’t a rule of physics, and it isn’t an objective quality of the universe. We just think it is.

On the conservative side, morality is usually seen as coming from God. I’m not a believer, so I see morality as a set of rationalizations for our biological impulses.»

— Scott Adams. "How to Persuade the Other Party." Scott Adams' Blog (February 15, 2017)

1. Olga Khazan. "The Simple Psychological Trick to Political Persuasion: Conservatives are more likely to support issues like immigration and Obamacare if the message is “morally reframed” to suit their values." The Atlantic (February 1, 2017)

Further reading:

• James L Walker ("Tak Kak"). "What Is Justice?" Liberty (March 6, 1886) vol. 3 no. 25 (whole no. 77) p. 8 [document no. 454]

• Benjamin R Tucker. Comment on: "What Is Justice?" Liberty (March 6, 1886) vol. 3 no. 25 (whole no. 77) p. 8 [document no. 454]

• James L Walker ("Tak Kak"). "Stirner on Justice." Liberty (March 26, 1887) vol. 4 no. 18 (whole no. 96) p. 7 [document no. 603]

• James L Walker ("Tak Kak"). "Egoism." Liberty (April 9, 1887) vol. 4 no. 19 (whole no. 97) pp. 5-7 [document no. 609-611]

• Benjamin R Tucker. "Rights and Contract." Liberty (December 14, 1895) vol. 11 no. 16 (whole no. 328) pp. 4-5 [document no. 2134-2135]

• Benjamin R Tucker. "Relation of the State to the Individual." Liberty (November 15, 1890) vol. 7 no. 15 (whole no. 171) pp. 5-7 [document no. 1197-1199]

• Benjamin R Tucker. "Resistance to Taxation." Liberty (March 26, 1887) vol. 4 no. 18 (whole no. 96) p. 1 [document no. 597]

• Benjamin R Tucker. "Liberty and Property." Liberty (December 31, 1892) vol. 9 no. 18 (whole no. 252) pp. 3-4 [document no. 1591-1592]

• Benjamin R Tucker. "What Is Property?" Liberty (September 21, 1895) vol. 11 no. 10 (whole no. 322) pp. 4-5, 8 [document no. 2086-2087, 2090]

• Benjamin R Tucker. "L’Enfant Terrible." Liberty (August 24, 1895) vol. 11 no. 8 (whole no. 320) pp. 4-5 [document no. 2070-2071]

• Benjamin R Tucker. "Defence of Whom and by Whom?" Liberty (November 2, 1895) vol. 11 no. 13 (whole no. 325) p. 3-5 [document no. 2109-2111]

• Carl Watner. "Spooner vs. Liberty." The Libertarian Forum (March 1975) vol. 7 no. 3 ; "The Complete Libertarian Forum 1969–1984." Ludwig von Mises Institute (2006)

• Wendy McElroy. "The Non-Absurdity of Natural Law: One Can Disagree with Natural Rights without Declaring the Concept Nonsensical." Foundation for Economic Education (February 1, 1998)

• Wendy McElroy. Bibliographical Essay: "Benjamin Tucker, Individualism, & Liberty: Not the Daughter but the Mother of Order." Literature of Liberty (Autumn 1981) vol. 4 no. 3

• Wendy McElroy. "Benjamin Tucker, Liberty And Individualist Anarchism." The Independent Review (Winter 1998) vol. 2 no. 3 pp. 421–434

• Wendy McElroy. "I the Person versus We the People." Mises Daily (July 20, 2011)

• Wendy McElroy. "Copyright and Patent in Benjamin Tucker's Periodical." Mises Daily (July 28, 2010)

On Michael Malice:

• Michael Malice. "Why I won't vote this year – or any year." The Guardian (14 October 2014)

• Michael Malice, George Ouzounian "Maddox" (debaters), Rucka Rucka Ali (moderator). "Michael Malice, Does Voting Matter, Rucka, Lost Dildos, 102-year-old arrest, Stewie Douche." The Best Debate in the Universe (October 10, 2016) ep. 19 [96 min]

• Michael Malice. "Why I’ve Never Respected The Police." Thought Catalog (December 4, 2014)

• Michael Malice. "Why Conservatives Should Oppose The Police." Thought Catalog (December 10, 2014)

Other Michael Malice's guest appearances on The Tom Woods Show:

• Michael Malice (guest) and Tom E Woods Jr (host). "Go Ask Malice: Listeners’ Questions for Michael Malice." The Tom Woods Show (May 5, 2017) ep. 903 [56 min]

• Michael Malice (guest) and Tom E Woods Jr (host). "Rothbard v. Rand? Michael Malice and Tom Discuss." The Tom Woods Show (January 5, 2017) ep. 818 [37 min]

• Michael Malice (guest) and Tom E Woods Jr (host). "Voting: Yes or No?" The Tom Woods Show (June 10, 2016) ep. 679 [42 min]

• Michael Malice (guest) and Tom E Woods Jr (host). "Ayn Rand: The Good and the Bad." The Tom Woods Show (May 12, 2015) ep. 400 [36 min]

• Michael Malice (guest) and Tom E Woods Jr (host). "How to Persuade People: Tom and Michael Malice Discuss." The Tom Woods Show (May 1, 2015) ep. 393 [30 min]

• Michael Malice (guest) and Tom E Woods Jr (host). "The Cops: Is It a Case of Bad Apples?" The Tom Woods Show (December 16, 2014) ep. 306 [27 min]

• Michael Malice (guest) and Tom E Woods Jr (host). "Guest Says Libertarians Should Favor a Hillary Presidency." The Tom Woods Show (November 10, 2014) ep. 236 [31 min]

Michael Malice on Alexander Hamilton:

• Michael Malice (guest) and Tom E Woods Jr (host). "The Post-Debate Analysis: Tom and Michael Malice Discuss the Hamilton Debate, and What They Might Debate Next." The Tom Woods Show (December 10, 2015) ep. 552 [40 min]

• Michael Malice (guest) and Tom E Woods Jr (host). "Debate: Tom Woods and Michael Malice on Alexander Hamilton." The Tom Woods Show (June 25, 2015) ep. 432 [44 min]

URL related G+ posts:ópezCervilla/posts/eqzYbqy9qjBópezCervilla/posts/54ZWVGow1hhópezCervilla/posts/Bp6zzRatUveópezCervilla/posts/6reo1K55d5KópezCervilla/posts/93pD9pzsyK5

URL source YouTube comment:

Post has attachment
Adam Ozimek. "Sorry Nerds, But Colonizing Other Planets Is Not A Good Plan." Forbes (May 6, 2017)

I've been offering the same arguments for years to some of those nerds (without much success):ópezCervilla/posts/Y9g6pJVg1HLópezCervilla/posts/Km6N2i9jV84ópezCervilla/posts/bpdDM7hSsbWópezCervilla/posts/hbEzaLrMKxf

Related G+ posts:ópezCervilla/posts/fVpUthKDEMLópezCervilla/posts/htjp6iZQFstópezCervilla/posts/du7EAugWdMNópezCervilla/posts/PBXzTJGLuRKópezCervilla/posts/BfkJTdqNDqcópezCervilla/posts/dycD8VPRN4C

Apparently, I changed my mind at some point between April 2012 and
December 2012:

A fragment of "Interstellar" script before it was premiered:

URL G+ post source comment:
h/t +Finn Krogstad

Post has attachment
Insulin Resistance

I suspect there's a problem of insulin resistance running in your family. If such is the case, you may find the following lectures and books by Doctor Jason Fung useful. While he isn't exactly a brilliant doctor, I consider Fung to be essentially right on this particular matter:

• Jason Fung, MD. "The Obesity Code: Unlocking the Secrets of Weight Loss." Greystone Books (March 2016) [269 pages]

• Jason Fung, MD and Jimmy Moore. "The Complete Guide to Fasting: Heal Your Body Through Intermittent, Alternate-Day, and Extended Fasting." Victory Belt Publishing (October 2016) [301 pages]

• Jason Fung. "The Aetiology of Obesity." Jason Fung's YouTube channel (March 2013 - August 2013)
1/6. "A New Hope." [59 min]
2/6. "The New Science of Diabesity." [61 min]
3/6. "Trial by Diet." [81 min]
4/6. "The Fast Solution." [84 min]
5/6. "Diet and Disease." [60 min]
6/6. "Dietary Villains - Fat Phobia." [75 min]

• Jason Fung, MD and Megan Ramos. "Intensive Dietary Management (IDM) Program." (Toronto, Canada)
Wait while more posts are being loaded