Per 100 mL. Most people drink 300-500 mL, and many people get fewer than 15g of fiber daily. 3-4g of fiber is nothing to scoff at. It’s a good daily habit.
Coffee is a very good source of fiber, which protects against aging, while the drug caffeine does nothing.
My teeth are never stained.
Coffee is delicious.
So wrong on every point.
I think you misunderstood. The terminally ill cancer patient is getting urine salts from cancer free individuals. Nowhere on Wikipedia did anybody claim a benefit from the drinking of one’s own urine. Leave that to the alchemists.
There’s not really any conspiracy except one. Every billionaire and corporation seeks to profit above all other ethical considerations. I don’t know who’s correct regarding Burzynski, and I hope I’m never in a place to decide. But I don’t think it’s difficult for billionaires to brigade and rewrite any narrative that may profit them.
Wikipedia is great, but I don’t think it should be viewed as trustworthy or definitive as a source. In the same way billionaire-owned news corporations cannot be trusted to tell the whole truth. Wikipedia is a great place to start, but we could all use more practice following to source material, and to some extent I think Wikipedia reduces critical thinking.
But the evidence says nothing of the construction. The only thing carbon remnants indicate is that the pyramids are at least that old. That they were used and inhabited that long ago. If you believe they were constructed at the time, I would ask what evidence is there? Scant radiocarbon dating is not a definitive story to believe. Lichen in the granite quarry? Remnants along the road? A bakery and some mortar dust does not explain or date the construction of mountains of granite with no mortar between joints.
The pyramids in Egypt were dated by radiocarbon dating, but those dates only indicated that the pyramid structure was inhabited or used at that time - it says nothing of the construction date. Yet the pyramids have dates with no cited references on Wikipedia. What is so wrong with saying that we don’t know with any certainty how, when, or why the structures were built?
I don’t believe anything because I haven’t had terminal cancer or the treatment. I’m guessing you haven’t either. It’s not about choosing a side. It’s an illustration of corporate interests controlling the narrative from scientific journals, to media, social media, and Wikipedia. It would be naive to believe they can’t or don’t edit Wikipedia.
It’s already happened, and is still happening. So is it dead? Or maybe it’s been a half-aware zombie all along.
They don’t need or want to kill Wikipedia. They just need to heavily edit it. Kind of a dream come true for those pushing a narrative.
I spent some time in 2009-2010 working around a very close relative: Hydromantes brunus