Nutritionfacts is ideologically driven operation. They only present one side of the argument. Plant based diet first, facts second. Being a nonprofit doesn't make you immune from bias. It's not just money perverting the field, but also ideology.
The whole field of nutrition is divided into camps, when they conduct meta-analyses of all the literature, they pick inclusion/exclusion criteria so that the side that they are championing wins.
Metabolic syndrome is on the same spectrum of chronic illnesses as type 2 diabetes. It's not surprising that even non-diabetics can benefit from t2d drug metformin considering that only 11% Americans are fully metabolically healthy meaning they meet none of the criteria for metabolic syndrome.
But if you are one of these metabolically healthy people, you probably wont benefit from metformin.
>Did you really think you could say that “much of what was in that memo is fair to debate” and “portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace” without me asking you to clarify which sections you found fair for debate and which portions violated which specific portions of your Code of Conduct?
I don't think google knows where to draw the line between what is fair and what is harmful in the memo. I think they are just reacting to the media outrage. If they tried to draw the line it would just get shot down by both sides of the argument, only fueling the outrage.
Risk of terrorism is fat tailed, there is a chance albeit extremely low that an attack causes the whole world go unhinged causing extreme destruction. Meanwhile falling on shower the risks are local and predictable, devastating for the individual but not impactful in the grand scheme of things.