#ALEPH2020: humans are physiologically adapted to animal source foods

https://t.co/LeM5zGov9h
#ALEPH2020: Nutrients are not always easily obtained from plants only

https://t.co/XeTBtrxPX9
#ALEPH2020: special needs of vulnerable populations are met with animal source foods

https://t.co/iItkjGrJu5
#ALEPH2020: restricting animal source foods may put the young at risk

https://t.co/cw4vjVlz4f
#ALEPH2020: animal source foods - the health controversy

https://t.co/BdZouGKoju
#ALEPH2020: observational evidence does not necessarily imply causation

https://t.co/FN6CDHyfBL
#ALEPH2020: intervention studies have not shown clear detrimental effects

https://t.co/JVC0jb3FY4
#ALEPH2020: biochemical mechanisms are unconvincing

https://t.co/xcOE6azXrM
#ALEPH2020: redefining healthy diets

https://t.co/ZDUIfnWXgf
To the meta-thread ↩️

https://t.co/LGtbXl7u9w

More from Health

Some thoughts on this: Firstly, it might be personal preference, but I am not keen on this kind of campaign as I feel like it trivialises cancer. Sometimes the serious message gets lost because people are sharing pics of cats or whatever and the important context is gone.


More importantly, the statistic being used in the campaign is misleading. It says 57% of women put off cervical screening if they can't get waxed. But on further investigation, that's not accurate.

The page here goes on to say "57% of women who regularly have their pubic hair professionally removed would put off attending their cervical screening appointment if they hadn’t been able to visit a beauty salon."

So the 57% represents a concern not across the whole population of women, but only those who regularly get waxed. So how big of an issue is this across the whole population? And what else is stopping people getting smears?

I think campaigns for cancer screening are really tricky because there is so much nuance that often doesn't fit into a catchy headline or hashtag. It's certainly not easy and is part of a bigger conversation.

You May Also Like