You wouldn't undelstand, comlade.
> full house
https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj-2023-077310
https://archive.is/vWT6Q
Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses
Abstract
Objective
To evaluate the existing meta-analytic evidence of associations between exposure to ultra-processed foods, as defined by the Nova food classification system, and adverse health outcomes.
Design
Systematic umbrella review of existing meta-analyses.
Data sources
MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, as well as manual searches of reference lists from 2009 to June 2023.
Eligibility criteria for selecting studies
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of cohort, case-control, and/or cross sectional study designs. To evaluate the credibility of evidence, pre-specified evidence classification criteria were applied, graded as convincing (“class I”), highly suggestive (“class II”), suggestive (“class III”), weak (“class IV”), or no evidence (“class V”). The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework, categorised as “high,” “moderate,” “low,” or “very low” quality.
Results
The search identified 45 unique pooled analyses, including 13 dose-response associations and 32 non-dose-response associations (n=9 888 373). Overall, direct associations were found between exposure to ultra-processed foods and 32 (71%) health parameters spanning mortality, cancer, and mental, respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and metabolic health outcomes. Based on the pre-specified evidence classification criteria, convincing evidence (class I) supported direct associations between greater ultra-processed food exposure and higher risks of incident cardiovascular disease related mortality (risk ratio 1.50, 95% confidence interval 1.37 to 1.63; GRADE=very low) and type 2 diabetes (dose-response risk ratio 1.12, 1.11 to 1.13; moderate), as well as higher risks of prevalent anxiety outcomes (odds ratio 1.48, 1.37 to 1.59; low) and combined common mental disorder outcomes (odds ratio 1.53, 1.43 to 1.63; low). Highly suggestive (class II) evidence indicated that greater exposure to ultra-processed foods was directly associated with higher risks of incident all cause mortality (risk ratio 1.21, 1.15 to 1.27; low), heart disease related mortality (hazard ratio 1.66, 1.51 to 1.84; low), type 2 diabetes (odds ratio 1.40, 1.23 to 1.59; very low), and depressive outcomes (hazard ratio 1.22, 1.16 to 1.28; low), together with higher risks of prevalent adverse sleep related outcomes (odds ratio 1.41, 1.24 to 1.61; low), wheezing (risk ratio 1.40, 1.27 to 1.55; low), and obesity (odds ratio 1.55, 1.36 to 1.77; low). Of the remaining 34 pooled analyses, 21 were graded as suggestive or weak strength (class III-IV) and 13 were graded as no evidence (class V). Overall, using the GRADE framework, 22 pooled analyses were rated as low quality, with 19 rated as very low quality and four rated as moderate quality.
Conclusions
Greater exposure to ultra-processed food was associated with a higher risk of adverse health outcomes, especially cardiometabolic, common mental disorder, and mortality outcomes.These findings provide a rationale to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of using population based and public health measures to target and reduce dietary exposure to ultra-processed foods for improved human health. They also inform and provide support for urgent mechanistic research.
>she
>>>"the vaccine"
>>so which one?
>how dare you
lmao
vaccines [not all]
So which previous vaccines aren't poison?
[not all]
What does it mean?
Can you actually confirm excess mortality by yourself?
>fake narratives
>as
[not all]
So which of the previous ones weren't poison
>no, no, no, you are totally glowing for sure with your Questions
lmao
Can you verify excess mortality on your own?
>but you see the governments say there is excess mortality, so that's true, there is no way that this could be fake as well as covid
lmao
>you you youuuuu glow
lmao
you are a funny guy
>but but look "the vaccine"
so which is it?
It isn't Pfizer, because Pfizer wasn't warp speed.
Warp speed comes from science fiction.
>vaccine
>within not even a year
>sounds safe
>let's get it immediately and pump it into everyone
>That that that's the fault of Drumpf!!!
So you make vaccines as much retarded as possible and the docs still believe it's safe and put it into patients. And that's the fault of Trump?
Are you retarded?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Warp_Speed
As of August 2020, eight companies were chosen for funding of some $11 billion to expedite development and preparation for manufacturing their respective vaccine candidates.
inb4
>I was just pretending to be retarded
>mRNA is
>the warp seed
So you are even too retarded to read an article.
Also too retarded to even know that mRNA isn't actually new shit.
Also too retarded to ignore post saying that Pfizer (mRNA) wasn't even Warp Speed, you fucking retard.
>shilling for vaccines
Show me a single post of mine where I'm pro vaccines, you fucking ESL retard.