http://www.djur.cob.lu.se/Djurartiklar/Info/kroppstemperatur.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermogenesis#Non-shivering

Non-shivering thermogenesis occurs in brown adipose tissue (brown fat) that is present in all eutherians (swine being the only exception currently known).

Further, recent studies using positron emission tomography scanning of adult humans have shown that it is still present in adults in the upper chest and neck (especially paravertebrally). The remaining deposits become more visible (increasing tracer uptake, that is, more metabolically active) with ---> ******* cold exposure, and less visible if an adrenergic beta blocker is given before the scan. The recent study could lead to a new method of weight loss, since brown fat takes calories from normal fat and burns it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_adipose_tissue

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunt_fett

Har hum om vad som är vajsing... Men kan bara gissa med viss säkerhet.

HÄR ÄR DEN BERYKTADE FLOTT-FETT ENERGIN = SOM INTE ÄR ETT DUGG FÖR HJÄRNA! https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triglycerid

Båda reagerar på kroppsliga signaler, som av katekolaminer, ( https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katekolamin ) = AV STRESS. SYMPATISKA NERVSYSTEM AVSTÄNGT TILL FÖRDEL FÖR PARASYMPATISKA (VILO SYSTEMET, OM MAN INTE GÖR MIG AGRO = VILKET JAG UPPSKATTAR NOLL!)

RÄCKER DET INTE MED TORTYR???

https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/amnesomraden/statistik-och-undersokningar/alkoholstatistik/

https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/nyheter-och-press/nyhetsarkiv/2015/december/stodlinjen-och-alkoholhjalpen-byter-agare/ (länkar lite vart stans som är bra... Vem som äger det, spelar roll om det fungerar bra)

https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/

Researchers reveal that numerous health websites mislead public on risks of nicotine products

Millions of people visit the websites of the Mayo Clinic, American Cancer Society and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among others, seeking authoritative health information. But are they receiving it?

When it comes to learning about the differences in risk among certain types of nicotine products, many government websites are actually misleading or under-informing the public, according to two researchers who analyzed the content of numerous health websites.

This in turn helps explain the woeful lack of public knowledge about relative risks, violating basic consumer rights as well as the public health principles of individual rights and health literacy.

Writing in the International Journal of Drug Policy, Lynn Kozlowski of the University at Buffalo and David Sweanor of the University of Ottawa point out that many websites omit information showing that products such as e-cigarettes, smokeless tobacco and snus are far less harmful than traditional cigarettes.

"Public health ethics always has a concern to avoid any net harm to population health," explains Kozlowski, professor of community health and health behavior at UB and the paper's lead author.

"The fear has been that much safer tobacco and nicotine products like snus, smokeless tobacco and vape will possibly cause a net loss to public health because more people will use these products and these products may lead to cigarette use. This fear, however, is not based on actual evidence and cannot be used to suppress or otherwise keep the public uninformed of what is clearly known about the lower risks of these products," adds Kozlowski, PhD, one of the world's leading researchers on smoking behavior.

An information quarantine functions similarly to a medical quarantine - think of your favorite zombie movie or television show in which the infected person is secluded from everyone else to protect the overall public. In order to justify a quarantine, there has to be clear evidence that the need to protect population health should overrule personal autonomy.

In the case of providing information on differential health risks of nicotine products, "The evidence to date does not come close to establishing that there would be a loss to public health from making this information widely available from credible sources," Kozlowski says.

Kozlowski and Sweanor reviewed several major health websites — including the CDC, Mayo Clinic, American Cancer Society, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the National Cancer Institute — and found three types of examples of information on smokeless tobacco, "but no-to-modest efforts to inform consumers of the significantly lower risks compared to cigarettes for lifelong users," the researchers write.

In fact, they found that the Mayo Clinic perpetuated a misrepresentation discovered in 2003 — erroneously informing visitors that smokeless tobacco was as dangerous as cigarettes. The day after the article was released, the Mayo Clinic removed the headline, replacing it with the still misleading statement that smokeless tobacco was "not a safe product."

"People can only make as good a decision as the information available to them allows," said Sweanor, an adjunct professor in the University of Ottawa's Faculty of Law who has spearheaded the development of world-leading tobacco control initiatives in Canada since the early 1980s.

"The public is dramatically misinformed about the relative risks of substitutable tobacco and nicotine products. The risk differentials are huge, but this is simply not known by a vast majority of those whose lives are at risk," adds Sweanor.

England has an example of a website — Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) — that gets it right on vaping, the researchers said. A briefing posted on the site specifically states: "Compared to tobacco products, electronic cigarettes are significantly safer."

In their paper, the researchers note that information on comparative risks is common for other products and activities, like over-the-counter medicines and even safety ratings of vehicles.

They argue that the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which regulates the sale of tobacco products, isn't doing its part to inform consumers of important differences in harm among tobacco products.

To illustrate their point, Kozlowski and Sweanor use the example that if one type of alcoholic beverage caused 3 in 5 regular users to die prematurely — as is the case with smoking traditional cigarettes — while another caused massively fewer deaths, consumers would want to know which product was the safer alternative.

"It would be scandalous, even criminal, to keep such facts from consumers," the researchers write. "Yet, such facts are being kept from adult consumers of legal tobacco/nicotine products, either by not informing or actively misinforming consumers. It is as if tobacco consumers were blindfolded and not allowed to see dramatic differences in harm from different products."

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20160420/Researchers-reveal-that-numerous-health-websites-mislead-public-on-risks-of-nicotine-products.aspx

ATT DET INTE ÄR HÄLSOKOST ÄR JU DET INGET TVIVEL OM, MEN INTE BARA NACKDELAR MED DET! Man tar för givet att folk är Okunniga och lättlurade idioter när man Ljuger om resultat. VERKAR SOM MÅNGA VERKLIGEN INFRIAR DEN UPPFATTNINGEN!??? SÅ JÄVLA SVÅRT ÄR DET INTE ATT TA REDA PÅ HUR GIFTIGT ALLT ÄR! 

?HARSH TOMTARNA? I MILJÖPARTIET BORDE KANSKE BÖRJA INFORMERA OM SÅNT HÄR ISTÄLLET! FÖR ATT CURLA...

http://vark-learn.com/the-vark-questionnaire/?p=questionnaire

http://mirhepo.bloggagratis.se/2010/05/05/2919119-inlarnings-stilar-och-neurologiskt-spatial-typ-av-person/

https://www.hjart-lungfonden.se/Stod-oss/Privatpersoner/Minnesgava/?utm_source=programatic&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=minnegava

https://lakareutangranser.se/vart-arbete/arbetsomraden/flyktingar

https://lakareutangranser.se/nyheter/7-myter-om-hiv

1. Hiv är en dödsdom

FEL

Hiv och aids är den dödligaste pandemin i modern historia: den har dödat dubbelt så många som det första världskriget. Men de framsteg som gjorts i kampen mot sjukdomen på bara 30 år har varit spektakulära. I dag är det en mycket låg risk att någon som tar hivläkemedel varje dag utvecklar aids och kan därför leva ett långt och meningsfullt liv.

... MEN tyvärr också RÄTT om man inte tar sina hivläkemedel... = VIKTIGT ATT INTE HA MED FYLLE OHYRA SOM STRESSAR EN?!

3. Du kan inte föda ett friskt barn om du är hivpositiv

FEL

En gravid hivpositiv kvinna som får behandling har mindre än 2 procents risk för att överföra viruset till sitt barn. Detta är fantastiska nyheter: tack vare dagens hivmediciner har antalet barn som föds med viruset i världen minskat med 60 procent sedan 2000. Och förra året blev Kuba det första landet att deklarera att risken att mödrar för över hiv till sina barn helt hade eliminerats.

Men denna seger beror på tillgången till hivbehandling. I västra och centrala Afrika får endast 39 procent av hivpositiva gravida kvinnorna behandling. Detta är anledningen till att antalet barn som föds med viruset i denna region är så oproportionerligt hög.  Medan Väst- och Centralafrika står för 17,9 procent av det totala antalet människor som lever med hiv i världen, sker nästan hälften av födslarna av hivinfekterade barn här.

Dessa barn föds med en sjukdom som kunde ha förhindrats. Och det är desto mer oroande att 90 procent av de hivpositiva barnen i denna region inte heller har tillgång till pediatrisk hiv-behandling. Utan behandling kommer ungefär en tredjedel av de barn som lever med hiv inte överleva sin första födelsedag; hälften av dem kommer inte att fira sin andra födelsedag och bara en av fem av dessa barn kommer att fira sin femte födelsedag.