feat: fixed images in blog article

frontend/src/Config/Pages/Blog/Records/EverettVegans.elm

@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ Also, if insufficiency of K2 and the other fat soluble vitamins are to blame for
 First of all, the claim of 84% of vegans quitting is just blatantly incorrect according to his own citation, which found a 70% dropout rate for vegans. Second of all, this is a ridiculous question. People stop doing health promoting things for all sorts of reasons, and it probably would have been a good idea for him to read the goddamn reference instead of resorting to conspiracy theories. The study includes an inventory of explanations for participant recidivism, and [the craving of animal products only occurred in the minority of recidivists](https://faunalytics.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Faunalytics-Study-of-Current-and-Former-Vegetarians-and-Vegans-%E2%80%93-Secondary-Findings-.pdf).
 
 ![][image1]
-[image1]: /blog/sweetdeception/image1.png 
+[image1]: /blog/everettvegans/image1.png 
 
 Furthermore the study includes a table of motivations for pursuing veganism. Only a measly 1-3% of participants had motivations that were purely ethical in nature. While most motivations were health related. So, it seems like people are generally going on plant-based diets for health related reasons, and abandoning the diets without generally suffering health related costs. This isn't the only reason the question is stupid. Plenty of health promoting behaviours have high recidivism rates, such as exercise.
 
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ Of those 11, 6 were vague like "sick", "lightheaded", "not healthy", and "health
 It's not clear why we should accept the implication that a diet is healthy if and only if it can be generally adhered to. There are many examples of diets with poor adherence rates that I don't think Joseph would sign off on being unhealthy, and there are plenty of examples of diets with high adherence rates that Joseph wouldn't consider healthy at all.
 
 ![][argument1]
-[argument1]: /blog/sweetdeception/argument1.png 
+[argument1]: /blog/everettvegans/argument1.png 
 
 **Claim #3 (**[**04:59**](https://youtu.be/MpxgZGnEF7E?t=299)**):**
 
@@ -72,19 +72,19 @@ Firstly, this is an ecological fallacy. Essentially, Joseph is looking at two te
 Instead, this research is just looking at the average height of each entire country and the average intake of said foods. Such studies are susceptible to something called the [ecological fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy), meaning what applies on a country average level may not apply on an individual level.
 
 ![][image2]
-[image2]: /blog/sweetdeception/image2.png 
+[image2]: /blog/everettvegans/image2.png 
 
 In this graph on average as X increases, so does Y. But if you look at each cluster separately, as X increases Y decreases. A real life example of this is the relationship between smoking and longevity.
 
 ![][image3]
-[image3]: /blog/sweetdeception/image3.png 
+[image3]: /blog/everettvegans/image3.png 
 
 If you plot each country's smoking rate and lifespan you'll see that [the more people smoke the longer they live](https://www.thefunctionalart.com/2018/07/visualizing-amalgamation-paradoxes-and.html). This correlation, of course, breaks at an individual level.
 
 I very much doubt that Joseph would approve of this ecological study. [[6](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1140864/)]
 
 ![][image4]
-[image4]: /blog/sweetdeception/image4.png 
+[image4]: /blog/everettvegans/image4.png 
 
 The study makes no attempt to adjust for socioeconomic or genetic differences in the countries involved. Richer countries tend to have access to more expensive sources of calories, but also have fewer infections and cleaner water, among many other things conducive to better health. They also tend to eat meat. This doesn't tell us what's happening within each of those populations across the spectrum of meat consumption.
 
@@ -97,19 +97,19 @@ Also it's likely that the reason animal protein correlates strongly with height
 Yovana Mendoza was a so-called "raw" vegan. As you can see from the picture he flashed, she was on a meme starvation diet of only raw food averaging an abysmal ~1000 calories a day.
 
 ![][image5]
-[image5]: /blog/sweetdeception/image5.png 
+[image5]: /blog/everettvegans/image5.png 
 
 Raw food diets are associated with many stupid beliefs revolving around self-purification, including extensive fasting periods (49% of study participants), not supplementing B12 (7% took any supplement at all), and enemas (16% of them). [[7](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10436305/)]
 
 Some believe once you are "purified" you lose your period which is a sign you're clean, for example. As you approach 100% raw food, pretty much half of them complain of amenorrhea, probably due to insufficient calories.
 
 ![][image6]
-[image6]: /blog/sweetdeception/image6.png 
+[image6]: /blog/everettvegans/image6.png 
 
 As you can see, raw diets associate with considerably low BMI scores.
 
 ![][image7]
-[image7]: /blog/sweetdeception/image7.png 
+[image7]: /blog/everettvegans/image7.png 
 
 Rawvana also [made a video](https://youtu.be/hMO4m0rZAB8?t=27) telling us how since she's gotten healthier on her raw vegan diet her "eyes have become greener", so I don't know how much stock we should put in her health advice, Joseph.
 
@@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ Both studies showed that vegans had statistically significantly lower retinol st
 Now, let's get to the mechanistic fuckery. Joseph claims that there are genetic differences in carotenoid to retinol conversion capacity that could lead to deficiency in some who are relying on carotenoids over retinol. Right off the bat, Joseph's own reference contradicts his claim, as the entire variance in the population sample had fasting plasma retinol within the reference range.
 
 ![][image8]
-[image8]: /blog/sweetdeception/image8.png 
+[image8]: /blog/everettvegans/image8.png 
 
 > _...the lowest plasma concentration was 963.8 nM, indicating that all volunteers had adequate serum vitamin A concentrations._
 
@@ -171,14 +171,14 @@ Here's a quick intro for vitamin K2. There are many different vitamin K isomers
 First, we'll look at bioavailability of MK4. He mentions animal livers (especially goose liver), egg-yolks, hard cheese and full-fat dairy. I couldn’t find any study on bioavailability of MK4 from foods rather than supplements. But, we can look at studies with doses one could plausibly obtain from diet alone. In probably the best study on this subject, researchers assessed **420 μg of MK-4 compared to 420 μg of MK-7**. [[35](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23140417/)] As you can see from this chart, the only reasonable way to obtain this is with goose liver. [[36](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11356998/)]
 
 ![][image9]
-[image9]: /blog/sweetdeception/image9.png 
+[image9]: /blog/everettvegans/image9.png 
 
 The other things he recommended simply don’t have enough. To get this amount it would take **8.9 kilograms of hard cheese, 52.5 liters of whole milk, or 52.4 average eggs.** The amount of goose liver it would take to get this dose of MK-4 is roughly **115g of liver,** however this has **over 10,000μg of retinol, the upper limit is 3000μg** and hypervitaminosis A is no joke.
 
 But regardless, let’s say someone managed to eat this amount of MK-4 regularly. Is it actually absorbed? It wouldn't appear so.
 
 ![][image10]
-[image10]: /blog/sweetdeception/image10.png 
+[image10]: /blog/everettvegans/image10.png 
 
 At no time point after the oral administration of 420μg of MK4 is it actually detectable in the blood.
 
@@ -193,10 +193,10 @@ What Joseph didn't mention was that 29% of the vegan children did not consume vi
 I mention this because it's clear that a large chunk of the cohort was not actually supplementing vitamin B12 and vitamin D. Both of which are nutrients that are strongly associated with normal growth. There was also little to no consideration for other dietary variables, and the analysis itself is cross-sectional with extremely small sample-sizes.
 
 ![][image11]
-[image11]: /blog/sweetdeception/image11.png 
+[image11]: /blog/everettvegans/image11.png 
 
 ![][image12]
-[image12]: /blog/sweetdeception/image12.png 
+[image12]: /blog/everettvegans/image12.png 
 
 Perhaps also worth noting are the similar lean mass, lower fat mass, and preferable LDL-C and hs-CRP values of the vegans. But he didn't mention that.
 
@@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ Perhaps also worth noting are the similar lean mass, lower fat mass, and prefera
 Let's start with the British study. These results are trivially explainable by the lower caloric intakes for vegans in his reference.
 
 ![][image13]
-[image13]: /blog/sweetdeception/image13.png 
+[image13]: /blog/everettvegans/image13.png 
 
 Also, while the vegans tended to fall below the 50th percentile for weight, the vast majority experienced normal growth, and the lower weight (and in some cases height) may be attributable to the lower caloric intake. The authors actually take note of this, but Joseph didn't mention it.
 
@@ -226,17 +226,17 @@ In the Farm Study was a 1989 study involving children ages four months to ten ye
 Across vegan children, growth was skirting the 50th percentile on average. This is exactly where these growth trajectories should be.
 
 ![][image14]
-[image14]: /blog/sweetdeception/image14.png 
+[image14]: /blog/everettvegans/image14.png 
 
 Same for weight.
 
 ![][image15]
-[image15]: /blog/sweetdeception/image15.png 
+[image15]: /blog/everettvegans/image15.png 
 
 We also have the VeChi Diet Study. [[40](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31013738/)] Vegan and omnivorous children had similar caloric intakes. Omnivores had the highest protein, fat, and added sugar intake, while vegans had the highest total carb and fibre intake. In fact, the vegans were still able to consume a median of 2.25g of protein per kg bodyweight. While there were a few outliers in each group, growth was generally very similar overall.
 
 ![][image16]
-[image16]: /blog/sweetdeception/image16.png 
+[image16]: /blog/everettvegans/image16.png 
 
 There are explanations for the children who may have been stunted or wasted, and they're nothing that is necessarily inherent to vegan diets themselves. These reasons include: short parents, inadequate caloric intake, exclusively breastfeeding longer than recommended (probably due to hippie vegan parents doing dumb hippie things).
 
@@ -261,12 +261,12 @@ Joseph then concludes (from two studies were the majority did not supplement B12
 If Joseph wanted to know if B12 supplements work differently than animal foods, he could turn his attention to this interventional study that found that fortified cereal was more effective at raising B12 than pork. [[46](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31519167/)]
 
 ![][image17]
-[image17]: /blog/sweetdeception/image17.png 
+[image17]: /blog/everettvegans/image17.png 
 
 Also, various doses of cheapo, vanilla-ass cyanocobalamin rescue vitamin B12 deficiency in clinically deficient vegans. [[47](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29499976/)] This is confirmed by clinically meaningful reductions in both methylmalonic acid and total homocysteine. If Joseph knows of any better biological correlates for B12 absorption and utilization, as well as evidence that they're uniquely affected by animal foods, I'd love to hear from him about it.
 
 ![][image18]
-[image18]: /blog/sweetdeception/image18.png 
+[image18]: /blog/everettvegans/image18.png 
 
 **Claim #14 (**[**11:38**](https://youtu.be/MpxgZGnEF7E?t=698)**):**
 
@@ -325,7 +325,7 @@ Firstly, despite whole wheat flour being higher in phytic acid than white wheat
 Secondly, other compounds that are common in plant foods but are absent (or virtually absent) from animal foods may have pleiotropic effects that mitigate or even overcome the effect of phytates on iron absorption, with vitamin C probably being the most prominent example. In regards of counteracting phytic acid, 50mg (less than an orange worth) does more than 50g of meat. [[62](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2911999/)]
 
 ![][image19]
-[image19]: /blog/sweetdeception/image19.png 
+[image19]: /blog/everettvegans/image19.png 
 
 It also doesn't follow that one needs to consume animal products to meet iron needs, which Joseph heavily implies. Increased intake through diet and/or supplementation are clearly possible.
 
@@ -372,7 +372,7 @@ Vegans, especially those who menstruate, might want to err on the side of cautio
 Previously having less edible material is trivially true of animal foods produced from modern animal agriculture.
 
 ![][image20]
-[image20]: /blog/sweetdeception/image20.png 
+[image20]: /blog/everettvegans/image20.png 
 
 **Claim #21 (**[**14:58**](https://youtu.be/MpxgZGnEF7E?t=898)**):**
 
@@ -381,7 +381,7 @@ Previously having less edible material is trivially true of animal foods produce
 What point is Joseph trying to make here? We could try to formalize it, perhaps.
 
 ![][argument2]
-[argument2]: /blog/sweetdeception/argument2.png 
+[argument2]: /blog/everettvegans/argument2.png 
 
 **Claim #22 (**[**15:34**](https://youtu.be/MpxgZGnEF7E?t=934)**):**
 
@@ -400,12 +400,12 @@ Lastly, one of the two "high quality" studies in the review that Joseph cited ev
 Here is the prevalence of depression forest plot from that meta-analysis.
 
 ![][image21]
-[image21]: /blog/sweetdeception/image21.png 
+[image21]: /blog/everettvegans/image21.png 
 
 And mean depression scores.
 
 ![][image22]
-[image22]: /blog/sweetdeception/image22.png 
+[image22]: /blog/everettvegans/image22.png 
 
 Also, just for flavour, I'll point out that Joseph's reference was funded by the beef industry.
 
@@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ On average, vegans do in fact tend to have a lower bone mineral density and high
 BMI has been shown to causally increase bone mineral density, which in turn has been shown to causally decrease risk of fracture. This effect mediation has been found independently in observational studies, and the differences in bone mineral density seem to align with what we would expect based on the differences in BMI. [[89](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33784428/)][[90](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36260985/)][[91](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24862213/)][[92](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15817133/)]
 
 ![][image23]
-[image23]: /blog/sweetdeception/image23.png 
+[image23]: /blog/everettvegans/image23.png 
 
 So the question that is interesting here, from a causal perspective, is whether vegans have weaker bones and higher risk of fracture independently of BMI and other important confounders such as calcium and vitamin D. Vitamin D has not been taken into account at all in the EPIC-Oxford study. BMI and dietary calcium were adjusted for, but only via categorisation, which is known to bias results when examining continuous variables with non-linear responses. [[93](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17938055/)]
 
@@ -529,7 +529,7 @@ These data don't represent any official guidelines. And I'm not sure how shitty
 In fact, some animal foods rank higher than some plant foods, and in the aggregate there is non-inferiority between some animal foods and some plant foods. For example, seafood ranks particularly high, and is non-inferior to both fruits and vegetables. Both meat and dairy are also non-inferior to grains. If Joseph wants to make some kind of claim about a vegan conspiracy to suppress the health value of animal foods, he'll have to explain why seafood gets such a remarkable score here.
 
 ![][image24]
-[image24]: /blog/sweetdeception/image24.png 
+[image24]: /blog/everettvegans/image24.png 
 
 # EVEN MOAR NUTRIENTS THO
 
@@ -576,7 +576,7 @@ Regarding creatine, all studies he cited were on supplemental creatine with dose
 I'm sorry, Joseph. But tracer studies disagree. [[113](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33693735/)] In fact, tofu appears to be on par with pork, and better than eggs, in terms of its contribution to total positive protein balance in the human body.
 
 ![][image25]
-[image25]: /blog/sweetdeception/image25.png 
+[image25]: /blog/everettvegans/image25.png 
 
 If you're going to try to make this point to shit on tofu, would you please be consistent and also shit on pork and eggs?
 
@@ -639,7 +639,7 @@ Bruh, this is a meta-analysis of rodent studies with a blurb about how the resul
 In isolation, leghemoglobin actually had better bioavailability than iron(II)-sulfate, and when part of a food matrix, here as fortification for corn tortillas, had similar (ie non stat sig different) bioavailability compared to bovine heme iron. [[124](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16478282/)]
 
 ![][image26]
-[image26]: /blog/sweetdeception/image26.png 
+[image26]: /blog/everettvegans/image26.png 
 
 As an added fun fact that may blow up the brains of Joseph's audience, leghemoglobin is actually evolutionarily just as old as hemoglobin. See the following figure from Biochemistry 6th edition by Berg, Tymoczko and Styer.
 
@@ -688,10 +688,10 @@ Show me the study that actually divulges that any of these sorts of foods have a
 Well, as long as we're appealing to authorities, we should point out that both the French and German governments recommend limiting meat intake to no more than 500g per week and 600g per week, respectively.
 
 ![][image27]
-[image27]: /blog/sweetdeception/image27.png 
+[image27]: /blog/everettvegans/image27.png 
 
 ![][image28]
-[image28]: /blog/sweetdeception/image28.png 
+[image28]: /blog/everettvegans/image28.png 
 
 # VEGAN MIDGET BABIES THO
 
@@ -722,7 +722,7 @@ Finally, two cautionary narrative review articles by Miedziaszczyk et al. and Pa
 This just seems like pure speculation. Maybe optimal is not achievable without a supplement on any natural diet. I mean, think about it. What's the argument for omnivorous diets necessarily providing optimal amounts of all nutrients? If there's no argument for that, then it's possible that even the diet that he's recommending is horribly insufficient in some way.
 
 ![][image29]
-[image29]: /blog/sweetdeception/image29.png 
+[image29]: /blog/everettvegans/image29.png 
 
 How has Joseph determined that the optimal range for nutrient intakes aren't above what could be obtained from omnivorous diets? Seems like his argument here is begging the question. If it's the case that optimal levels of nutrients are only practical to obtain from supplements, then we'd all benefit— not just vegans.