Alfred001

I generally look at review articles to get a broader view, occasionally individual articles. No, for personal matters. Nutritional choices, things I want to get educated on, stuff like that.

From time to time, I'm in a position of having to read studies or review articles from various fields to figure out what science says on a particular issue. One obstacle I encounter is not knowing how reputable the journal the paper was published in is, the reputation of a journal being a useful heuristic for a non-expert for having some sense of how credible the information is. Is there some way to determine this?

An update on this situation: I've been fine for a few days now, but I've developed this sensation where if I swallow or burp, I can feel a tightness around the collarbone. As if there is a narrowing or obstruction of some kind there and the spit or air has to press through a narrowing to pass. The sensation is not strong, it doesn't interfere with my eating or breathing, I don't feel it when breathing. This started yesterday and has gotten a bit more intense today. I figure I'll wait a few days and see what happens, but wanted to post here in case this is some kinda alarming symptom, as I know COVID is related to respiratory problems.

Well, that's not true. The presence of the lab doing that kind of research certainly increases the probability. As for the monkeys and typewriters, how is it not analogous? You're saying it's just as likely to occur at any place, whether it has a lab or not, so how is this different than saying that a monkey typing up antidisestablishmentarianism is no less likely than any other equally long string of random letters, because what difference does it make that it happens to mean something in English? Because it means this could have happened anywhere on Earth, yet it happened in one of relatively few places where there's also a lab it could have escaped from.

You reach out to an eminent person in your field whom you don't know with a question, they respond with a brief, but polite answer. Their answer does not call for a response from you. Do you leave it there or do you respond with a "thank you" email?

2xpfizer, but a looong time ago. Two summers ago, IIRC.

Some days ago, I developed a fever and a severely painful sore throat. This lasted for 2-3 days and I'm now on my second day of being symptom free. I did a COVID test this morning and it came back positive. Seeing how I now feel fine, but have a positive test result, is there anything I should be taking to treat the infection or is the recommendation to just wait? Should I take anything to reduce risk of long COVID? I read a meta analysis of COVID guidelines and it seems there's a tremendous number of guidelines with a lot of disagreement between them, so I'm not sure what authority to consult. From popular media, I remember hearing monoclonal antibodies as being the only (?) effective treatment. Should I get those or are they only for severe cases? I will be 34 in a few weeks, am IgA deficient, but other than that am in good health.

I'm assuming this was directed at the monkeys with typewriters comparison to your earlier example, so how are they distinct? Thanks, this is strong evidence against the engineered in the lab theory. Actually, this only contradicts the engineered in the lab theory, not the leaked from the lab theory. But since we now know there are many such labs in China, there's no strong reason any more to assume it did leak from a lab, though it's still a possibility. I'm still interested, however, in the hypothetical probability debate - why you guys didn't think, under the original premise (3 labs, and if we assume the ability to infect humans is novel), that it would clearly be a leak. Again, this goes in favor of the lab leak theory. (which I no longer strongly believe)

All over China is my understanding. Another significant question is how many novel virus outbreaks have there been in China and how many in the world over, say, the last 50 years. If they happen very frequently, that increases the odds of a coincidence happening and the odds would perhaps not be as minuscule as I'd initially thought them to be. Anyone know the answer? Did avian and swine flu both come from Chinese wet markets? ??? The two bits you quoted are the exact same argument. That's like saying that if you give a monkey a typewriter, the odds of him typing out antidisestablishmentarianism by banging the keys is equal to any equally long string of gibberish. How does it affect the probability of him hitting that sequence of keys that it happens to mean something in English? From the standpoint of banging the keys randomly, it's just a sequence of letters of a particular length and equally likely to get hit as any other random sequence of letters of equal length. Furthermore, in your scenario, there isn't an alternative explanation to chance to why you stubbed your toe on that day. Here we have two explanations of an event: 1. random evolution that happens to coincide with one of 3 places where the "evolution" could have not been random (again the 3 places premise may be faulty, but that was the original premise and we're debating probability now) 2. this is a place where such alterations are done on purpose, not randomly, and there happened to be a lapse in security measures Can you give a source on that? Not that I think you're making ti up, I'd just like to read it. Also, has it demonstrated that specifically the original variant with ability to infect humans predates the lab? Because, from what I understand, this is a virus that's been around a long time, but only recently gained the ability to infect humans. But do all those labs do gain of function research? If they do, that would indeed refute the premise my position hinges on.

My argument is not that zoonotic origin of a virus is unlikely, my argument is that the location of the supposedly zoonotic origin coinciding with one of vanishingly small number of places on the Earth where there's also a lab that makes precisely such modifications artificially is an astronomically unlikely coincidence. I've restated my position and corrected misapprehension of it so many times now. I don't understand why I have to reexplain it so many times, it's such a simple point. This is amazing. You don't think that a virus gaining ability to infect humans naturally at one of 3 places in the world where there's also a lab that does that artificially, rather than ANYWHERE ELSE on Earth, is an unlikely coincidence? This is not a rhetorical question, I'd like to hear your answer. 🤦‍♂️ That was a way of expressing how improbable the coincidence is, OBVIOUSLY. The improbability of the coincidence is the evidence, obviously. What kind of evidence was looked for and not found which was the basis of the dismissal of the theory? What was the evidence that, if found, would have proved the theory or gone to its favor? If they had been sequencing it from wildlife, how is the origin a lab leak, rather than wildlife where they sequenced the virus from to begin with? Because it was wildlife from unpopulated areas?

Jesus, guys, OBVIOUSLY the argument isn't that unlikely things are impossible. It's that, along with the ASTRONOMICALLY unlikely explanation of the origin of the virus, there is also a perfectly ordinary explanation that doesn't involve any kind of astronomical unlikelihood - the virus leaked from the lab - follow? If you have two explanations of an event and one involves an improbability that is so extreme it's hard even to intuitively conceptualize and the other doesn't, OBVIOUSLY the right explanation is the one that doesn't involve astronomical improbabilities. Which part?

So 3 such labs in the world (again, perhaps that isn't true, but you haven't contested that premise) and the virus just happens to naturally occur in one of those 3 places, you think that's reasonably likely? Not analogous. Someone will necessarily win the lottery a virus isn't necessarily going to gain the ability to infect humans. Even if it did it wouldn't be analogous, because in the lottery all you're asking for is someone to win, here you're asking for an unlikely event to occur AT A PARTICULAR PLACE, when there are only 3 such places in the world. Any ball park figure of how many? Because if it's like a 1000 or 10 000, that's still an unbelievable coincidence. Well, but people DON'T do this in their basements, it's only done in labs, of which there is a, presumably, small number in the world, so the point still stands. You can't be serious. Do you realize how different the odds are of someone winning on roulette and this scenario happening??? Well, yeah, they live next to a war zone. Improbable, but not even in the same universe of improbability as this. lol, no, because then a virus occurring naturally in a place where there is also a lab doing gain of function research wouldn't be improbable. I never argued that it doesn't, of course if it originated in a wet market it would have started spreading from one. It's not part of my case that spreading from one rather than many doesn't make sense. Exactly, that's part of my argument. The idea that this rare event would just have happened to occur naturally at one of only few places in the world where it could also have happened becuase someone MADE it happen (point being, much more likely to happen if someone is trying to make it happen than to just happen) is unbelievably improbable. I mean, it's so obviously improbable on the face of it, I find it hard to believe anyone takes the natural provenance theory seriously. No! Another claim I just didn't make. OF COURSE I don't think that nor does my case hinge on that. You are arguing for my case here. If the virus could happen anywhere and not just at any wet market in China, that makes its emergence at a place where a lab is also located all the more improbable.

Is it true that the lab in Wuhan is one of only three labs in the world that do gain of function research? If this is true, I don't understand how this could NOT be a lab leak (and please fact check me on these points, perhaps I got something wrong): - COVID is a new variant of a previous virus - the previous virus had only the capacity to infected bats/animals, no bat->human transmission - gain of function modification can give a virus the ability to infect humans when it previously couldn't - only three labs in the world do this kind of modification - there are wet markets in Wuhan where such a virus could have originated, but presumably they exist all over China, why would it originate in the ONE place where this lab also happens to be located With all this in mind (if all this is correct), the idea that the virus did not leak from the lab just seems preposterous. The idea that this virus would just happen to emerge naturally in one of only three places on Earth where it also could have emerged artificially is absurd. The odds of that coincidence are astronomical. Or did I get some of my facts wrong?

Of course, no one is saying exercise is detrimental and perhaps even with strenuous exercise the net effect is beneficial, but the question becomes can you hit some sweet spot of intensity where you're getting the benefits while eliminating or minimizing the ROS generation so that you maximize the net benefit and avoid any potential drawbacks. Which poses the question of, as you move the intensity slider from low to high, how do the benefits change and how does the ROS generation change. Meaning do the benefits keep increasing with intensity and at what point of intensity do you hit a level of ROS generation that the antioxidant system can't handle. Where is the sweet spot? Is anyone aware of any research looking into this question? And it may be a relevant question, because perhaps exercise, once you cross a certain threshold of intensity, yes, reduces your risk of cardiovascular disease, but because of the oxidative damage, increases your risk of cancer. I mean, afterall, they do say

I'm reading this article, which arrives at the following conclusion: My questions are: #1 Is this a legitimate conclusion and #2 if it is, what is "extreme or exhaustive" physical activity which could achieve this overproduction of ROS above the body's antioxidant defense? What level of exercise are we talking about? I've just never heard of exercise potentially being detrimental to health, so I'm a little shocked. It goes against all advice you ever hear throughout your life where exercise is presented as an unqualified good.

Ah, I see, thank you!

I was listening to a podcast and the hosts, who are magazine editors, mentioned a headline they had a disagreement over. The article was about poets laureates being removed from their post and the headline was "unacknowledged legislators impeached." When one of the hosts mentioned the headline, someone went ah, in a "that was clever" way, but I'm apparently not, because I don't get it. Where's the cleverness?

What does the evidence say (if there is any) on a) the safety and b) the efficacy of COVID vaccines in people with IgA deficiency? I assume both a and b may differ depending on whether it's an mRNA or old technology vaccine.

It's just an urea breath test for h pylori, you're not giving medical advice, just advice on how to dissolve citric acid in water.

Because it's for a medical test, so I have to be sure it's done the right way. Thanks for the polite answer.

And when you say it takes time to dissolve, is it like a matter of seconds or more of a longer time frame?

Would stirring and shaking at room temperature be sufficient?

I want to dissolve either 3 or 4g of citric acid in 100 or 200 ml of water. Now, I'm totally illiterate when it comes to chemistry, so I'm wondering, is there something in particular I need to do beyond just dumping the citric acid into a container of water? Will it just dissolve at room temperature in tap water? Also, how long will it take for it to dissolve, is it instant or do I need to wait a period of time?

I was listening to a conversation about potential cancer vaccines from The Spectator and at one point (43:30) Karol Sikora, who's the expert in the conversation, brings up this concern with mRNA vaccines of whether the RNA can insert itself into the genome of host cells and whether this might confer a cancer risk 30 years down the line. I'd never heard this possibility brought up during the height of the discussion about vaccines. Is this a legit concern?

How long are seeds of plants typically viable? In other words, how long after a seed has been plucked from a plant can it be planted into the soil and produce a plant?