Ovah

It's both illegal and unethical clearcutting continuity forrest without said permits. Clearcutting continutity forests is a diservice to society.

Of course you can call yourself an engineer without formal training in the US. https://www.vice.com/en/article/man-fined-dollar500-for-crim... https://www.vice.com/en/article/oregon-unconstitutionally-fi...

At least it's written by a human and not AI slop.

While commonly taught in academic settings, I disagree with the notion that it's possible to self plagiarize. It's your own words and not stealing from somebody else.

You're saying that people shouldn't take a stance "without this basic evidence about the substance of the matter". The basic evidence is there. Take the time to watch Ben's videos, it's an hour of your time well spent.

You are more or less accusing a named individual of severe crimes without much to back it up.

Have you seen the youtube videos? They paint a pretty clear picture.

It's big leap to assume that massage of peripheral lymph vessels (e.g. arms and legs) affect lymph draining in the brain. I'm always a bit perplexed when people's first reaction to new hard science is to assume that it supports more or less pseudoscience. Especially in a forum where hard evidence is the norm and encouraged. Just because some research shares a noun with pseudoscience doesn't mean that X supports Y.

My comment was with NanoPore in mind.

That's a prevalent misconception even in the scientific community. Sure, each read has 1% incorrect bases (0.01). But each segment of DNA is read many times over. More or less 0.01^(many times) ≈ 0 incorrect bases.

Over 90% of diabetes is type 2: it's the classic metabolic disease. Noting down the exact type adds complexity to be honest. The are other forms, such as type 1, MODY or even insipidus and explaining all of them is another topic and they are comparatively rare. It's a bit of a stretch to call out the journalists work ethic as lazy. That said once specifying "type 2" wouldn't hurt but it's not necessary either.

Unfortunately, they recently removed most of the books from that hall due to conservation efforts. I didn't really give the feel or atmosphere of an old library.

I'm very active on iNaturalist. The name suggestions made there by image recognition, at least for the genus I work with, is a complete and utter joke. As soon as a genus becomes diverse, it classifies everything as a single species instead of a genus. I has ability to recognize 'the unknown'. Most of my time on that website is wasted on clearing up gross incorrect name suggestions from AI that people accept without any checks of plausibility. Even with species that have >2000 confirmed observations, it still incorrectly suggests the name for obviously completely unrelated species. You didn't take the time to explain what you mean with 'hyperspectral' but I'm assuming it just introduces a new dataset where we start all over.

Why is this "way better"? The article appears to discuss a blood tests to triage stroke which is unrelated to both disease treatment or identifying a root cause of the stroke.

It's been published since roughly May 2020 that COVID infects gut epithelium. It's not much of a stretch that it's transmissible that way as well.

I'm surprised how the conversation shifted from genetics to unethical germline editing of things that barely have clinical relevance. The rates of scurvy in the 21th century are low and definitely don't warrant super invasive editing germline cells (!), changes which become hereditary. Adding vitamin synethesis is super complex: it's not just a single SNP change but would require a whole new enzyme system. It's a very fine line from opening up a big old can of eugenics worms. Adding extra tRNAs is sometimes done in microbiology but any health benefits are extremely questionable. I've never before seen germline editing be a proposed 'solution' to malnutrition.

Good point. Small but important distinction.

Tesla is refusing to sign a collective bargaining agreement which is basically the norm in Sweden. This has been going on for a couple of weeks and garnered a lot of attention in Swedish media and social media. Sweden has a strong tradition of unionization which clashes with 'big American capitalism'. Swedish subreddits have lately had frequent posts with the comment sections filled with comments that more or less in unison are saying 'go get them, grabs popcorn' in support of the actions taken against Tesla.

Ironically leeches are used to this day. At the most specialized hospital in Sweden they are sometimes used to treat wounds that have a hard time healing. IIRC they somehow promote revascularizing of the tissue.

This doesn't hold true for all cell types. There's a group in Sweden that has C14 dated the replication rate of some cell types. IIRC some cell types - some neurons and adipocytes - only replicate every 10 years or less. Their method has something to do with C14 from nuclear weapons: people who lived before they went off wouldn't have as much. And a lot of C14 would be from the uptake of nuke C14 since. IIRC pre-nuke people have adipocytes with C14 amounts compared to post-nuke people because those cells barely divide. That's what I picked up from a talk way back. I believe this is the same group. https://news.ki.se/new-neurons-generated-in-the-hippocampus-...

Nah blood gets filtered through the liver and so would this compounded even if it was intravenously administered.

Is there any evidence that antibiotic resistance in any significant way crosses from livestock pathogens to human pathogens? I had a medical professor lecturing a couple years back saying it was basically a myth.

"Doctors have for decades refused to learn to use this technology" In Sweden this is actually standard practice. It's used for patients who have syndromes that guarantee them to get cancer several times over in their lifetime. IIRC some get an MRI every 6 months. The reason it's not done to a wider population.. well you can't justify the cost in a state funded healthcare system. The health benefit just isn't justifiable when MRIs are so scarce and expensive to run.

The most common category is "primary spontaneous". Predominantly young (85% <40yo), healthy males (6 times more common). Smoking contributes, and I believe being tall and skinny does so as well.

Sorry for the confusion. The x36 I copied from a lecture given by a senior obstetrician. The link was to provide background info on SIDS.

I'm neither an obstetrician nor a researcher in that field. But if I had to guess, this Wikipedia paragraph sumarizes things nicely regarding infection: "Passive immunity is also provided through colostrum and breast milk, which contain IgA antibodies that are transferred to the gut of the infant, providing local protection against disease causing bacteria and viruses until the newborn can synthesize its own antibodies." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_immunity

I'd have to read up to even speculate about the SIDS risk.

Which of the stats do you think sounds ridiculous? SIDS for example is pretty rare to begin with (33.3 deaths per 100,000 per Google). At the end of the day I'm guessing the advice maybe saves a few lives on a population level, but only gives a slight statistical advantage to a proactive parent.

I wish I had links to actual publications. I copied the numbers from a lecture given by a senior obstetrician.

Even a single breast feeding session provides some benefits. According to my med school notes a single meal reduces the risk of SIDS by x36 compared to no breast feeding. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/sudden-infant...

> There is very little good scientific evidence that it is important to breastfeed.

I wish you would back up such a strong statement. In medical school we were taught the complete opposite. From my notes:

- there's a x36 decreased risk of Sudden infant death syndrome if the child has been breast fed a single(!) time compared to no breast feeding.

- no breast feeding vs only breast feeding: x15 risk of pneumonia, x11 risk of diarrhea

- x14 lower risk of premature death compared to no breast feeding

Other pros include: optimal composition of nutrients, doesn't constipate, creates a connection between the mother and child.

While formula may be nutritionally complete, it does not include immune component. Breast milk literally contains antibodies that a new born is able to pick up and use.