Leaderboard

Model of the 2320 hemolithin molecule after MMFF energy minimization. Top: in space-filling mode; Center: ball and stick; Bottom: enlarged view of iron, oxygen and lithium termination. White = H; orange = Li; grey = C; blue = N; red = O and green = Fe. Hydrogen bonds are shown by dotted lines. Credit: arXiv:2002.11688 [astro-ph.EP] https://phys.org/news/2020-03-protein-meteorite.amp?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral

Indeed, just not in this context. 😊 Fuck, that's spookily accurate and not, at the same time. 🙂

So the paper discussing the use of cholorquine (and Remdesivir) is authored by Wang et al. (Cell Research volume 30, pages269–271 2020). The mechanism is not actually known but based on other viral data it is suspected to work by increasing the endosomal pH and interfering with glycosylation. The authors also speculate that modulating the immune system may also play a factor. Edit: apparently some studies with SARS suggest a role of zinc in inhibition, but from the looks of it most are in vitro data and I am not sure whether there are more studies out there.

Note that the spread was predominantly along trade routes. While there is decent evidence supporting the use of (black plague) bodies (which, btw. were already spreading in Asia and the Middle East), the entry of the plague was likely independent of that (or it may have contributed it, but was not the major driver). The narrative of the use of cadavers and the spread of the bubonic plague to Europe following the the siege of Caffa was strongly based on the account by Gabriele de' Mussi. Historians disagree whether he was actually physically present during the siege, but it appears that they think it is at least plausible that cadavers were hurled into the city. There is also the possibility that the plague arrived with the army and was subsequent transmitted by rodents, but despite overall uncertainties it is (from what I have read) not the favoured explanation. In the accounts de' Mussi also said that those escaped from Caffa were bound to Genoa Venice and so on and thereby spread the disease. However that clashes with what I think is now fairly well established understanding how the plague spread into Europe. It is well established that the plague spread over the Crimea, but cases in Genoa and Venice appeared well over 2 years after the siege of Caffa. Since even under unfavourable conditions the voyage should have not taken more than a few months, the timeline does not line up well. Another aspect that even if that timeline would have worked out, the time required would still have resulted in a substantial outbreak on the ships themselves. But again, around that time, there were no records of something that must have been considered to be a significant event. There are also folks who dispute that corpses were used in the first place (as there are no reports from folks fleeing from Caffa describing it aside from de' Mussi's account) or that there is no indication that it was knowingly used as a bioweapon (some dispute that bodies would be effective, they should have flung rats instead...). There is for example the speculation that the plague may have entered Caffa via the waterways. The Mongols were not able to fully block those and this where Caffa was getting resupplied. Also historians report that a step-wise entry of the plague into Europe is more likely which makes a spread over trade routes via Crimean ports even more likely. Well established reports pinpoint spring 1347 as the start of the plague in Constantinople, for example. I.e. there are quite a few reports that contradict the strong narrative of warfare-mediated spread, which is quite fascinating actually as not only historians have been working on it, but also epidemiologists and microbiologist, who use the documents to establish timelines and spread, not dissimilar to modern epi-studies (just with scarcer data). What is rather neat is that a fairly recent PNAS paper actually described genome evolution in Yersinia pestis which is consistent with repeated introduction via migratory and trading routes.

! Moderator Note Except that is exactly what you have claimed repeatedly. I would ask you to explain but there is obviously no point because (a) you are not able to and (b) the entire premise is nonsensical. DO NOT open another thread on this subject.

The plot revolves around a group of highly trained professionals who break into homes of elderly folks and aggressively cough into their faces for a few minutes. In a heartwarming twist one of their presumptuous victims confuses the terrorist with their grandchild to whom she had lost contact. After a furious intermezzo consisting of baking and copious amount tea the terrorist realizes that deep inside he is just longing for the love of a family. Meanwhile the grandparent realizes that the nightly visitor in stealth suit is indeed not her grandchild (the climbing hook on the balcony being a crucial hint- as well as a flashback highlight that the real grandchild had a fear of heights). But she enjoys the moment too much to care.Tragically, this human moment is also what ultimately resulted in successful infection. The terrorist becomes guilt-ridden when it becomes clear that the lonely grandma is not long for this world and he tries to reach her a last time to say his farewells. Meanwhile, his terrorist buddies consider him a traitor and try to stop him resulting in a highly choreographed fight scene involving lots of offensive coughing and running noses in slow-mo (the filmmakers did not consult experts as per usual and did not realize that this is not part of the symptoms). Finally, he survives all these ordeals and reaches the grandma, who turns out to be a special CDC/Homeland security agent in disguise (Jason Stratham) who have been delaying a rollout of coronavirus testing in favour of sting operations to catch corona-terrorists. PS: can anyone tell that I really, really do not want to read those student reports?

Too much thought on wording. The descriptive through spacetime itself can be misconstrued into thinking time has substance. When it is simply a rate assigned to change in events or duration just to be complete. However it common to accept the meaning to simply describe the passing or change in time in accordance to how time is measured Ie units etc. (Lol see the limits of the spoken lanquage by that descriptive). Thus is one of the few uses I find with metaphysics. It debates on how spoken descriptives can be interpreted.

Cholesterol levels are determined genetically with very little, if any, correlation to diet. Triglyceride levels have both a genetic and dietary influence. The chol & triglycerides in your blood are not the ones you ate, but the ones your body (mostly your liver) synthesized according to your genetic "plans," out of the basic Ac-CoA building blocks formed as products of digestion. It's difficult to claim hi chol influences arteriosclerosis when the coefficient of correlation is only ~0.3. A little better predictor of outcomes is the LDL/HDL ratio, but even that has only ~ 0.5 coef of Corr.....Correlation of hi WBC with infection is virtually 1.0--- does that mean taking chemotherapy to lower your WBC is the right way to treat infection? Taking regular exercise improves, statistically speaking, your chance of heart attack just as much as hi chol raises it. People who are overweight usually have confounding factors, such as lower likelihood of taking regular exercise or having diabetes, that increase their risks of arteriosclerosis. The main purpose of insulin is to regulate fat metabolism: it enhances fat production and inhibits the burning of fat. Eating a hi carb diet tends to increase fat stores, while a higher fat diet does not lead to as much fat production....Proof is easily deduced from the usual course of Type I (insulin deficiency) diabetes: it's usually first found in a chubby young kid of 5 or six yrs old who looses all sorts of weight rather rapidly. The doc finds his BS sky high and starts him on insulin. The kid rapidly regains his fat stores. There are plenty of lab studies that confirm the central role of insulin in fat metabolism.

(for evidence.) There are several ways to prove that our earth is actually a star. one way is to do "free fall" experiment on the moon. No... i mean star like sun but much smaller. True for now until physicists have found star smaller than our earth due to physicists believe that hydrogen fusion can not be happening on star like that. anyway... i really mean "deadly". Done. read from the top. If i wanted to ask questions i would not come here... i would go on the right topic and ask...

living on a deadly star. All of the giant planets are also stars.

The Lorentz-Poincare interpretation of special relativity is not my pet theory, but was the only interpretation of SR from 1905-1909, until Minkowski proposed his spacetime interpretation in 1909. Before being banned forever for mentioning this triviality again, I would suggest the adminstration of the forum how to handle the original interpretation of SR, as proposed by Lorentz and Poincare, which is usually named "Lorentz ether", and those who follow the recommendations given by Bell in Bell, J.S. (1976). How to teach special relativity. Progress in Scientific Culture 1(2), reprinted in Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics where he suggests to teach also this traditional approach to relativity because it gives the people better intuitions. Some forums decide to ban discussions of the Lorentz ether as anathema. In this forum, it was suggested that it is possible to discuss it, but in reality I was banned for doing it. I think banning people for doing things not explicitly forbidden is much worse than explicitly forbidding whatever theories of physics the admins don't like. That's fine with me, I have, of course, my own opinion about the scientific value of such rules, but I accept the right of the administration of the forum to forbid whatever they don't like. But not to forbid it in the rules, but then banning people in reality, naming the Lorentz-Poincare interpretation a personal pet theory, ... Just to clarify how I see the actual situation: There are threads for discussing my "pet theories", namely my generalization of the Lorentz ether to gravity and my ether model of the SM. And there is the Lorentz ether, as the classical interpretation of SR, which is not my pet theory. Therefore I think that I'm allowed to discuss it in every thread about relativity, if it gives some other perspective which may be interesting for some readers. I do this following the recommendations made Bell, thus, I follow here an established mainstream scientist too, and I do not see any violation of the actually existing rules of the forum. So, please clarify the rules of this forum, regarding the discussion of the original interpretation of SR. Is it anathema or legitimate part of established science? Oh, I see the date is Friday. the 13th. So, the result of this posting is predictable - a ban forever. So, good buy.