CharonY

I am more wondering about other infections (e.g. influenza, RSV etc.,) going on in that area.

Well, at least someone is happy: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/opinion/russia-putin-iran-war.html

The issue with these arguments is that there can be a grain of truth somewhere, but folks just than wildly extrapolate from there without stopping to gather evidence or think a bit about it. The fundamental criticism that medicine often is not sufficiently holistic is actually somewhat valid. But the reason is not some silly conspiracy, but rather that it is immensely complicated and much, if not most of the underlying biological determinants of health are simply not well understood. Just take a look at the vast literature regarding nutrition- while over decades some knowledge has crystallized, a lot is still uncertain, or does only apply to some folks or is hard to replicate. Add to that socio-economic determinants of health it is something that simply put no medical doctor or even groups of MDs can realistically cover. Even in a research context, if going sufficiently deep, each person could conceivably be a research project on their own, owing to individual genetic make-up as well (and perhaps more importantly) developmental history. Things encountered in childhood or even prenatal could have significant impact on health risks further down the line. But figuring those out is immensely complicated and it is unknown how much we can can realistically generalize. When postgenomics techniques were introduced, many of us had the notion that personalized medicine was on the horizon. However, within a few years the concept mostly got rebranded towards precision medicine, that tries to move away from the personalized aspect. I suspect with AI it will survive a while longer. However, at the given state I personally believe that it will still crash headlong into the issue of limited biological understanding. With AI we will just get to the point a bit faster. What most medical systems are is therefore the result of whatever best practices we can derive, at a given cost we are willing to pay, which is compatible with the system (e.g. single-payer, public funded, mixed or private) and also is likely to be used by the population. For example, high sugar food is unhealthy. I don't think that the literature is very ambigous about that. However, addressing that goes beyond the office of an MD. But there are also studies that have shown that in low-income communities, providing money is surprisingly effective in addressing health issues. Again, a practice that is not usually associated with medical treatment, yet rather effectively improved health measures. Again, this is all to say that health (and associated biology) is vastly more complicated than those youtubers and other folks make it out to be and folks should rather spend time learning the basics than wildly speculate about things they know little about. I understand that this is far less attractive and in today's attention economy won't get you clicks. But it is the only way to actually learn something.

This is part of a general conspiracy theory that assumes that there are financial imperatives to keep folks unhealthy. As in this case, there is never any evidence provided, which makes discussions rather meaningless. However, I will add one piece information that hopefully will get you thinking more broadly. In countries with single-payer systems, doctors don't make money by attracting more patients. I.e. a sicker population just means a higher workload for higher pay. But in those systems, the generally practice is often not that different to for-profit systems like the US. What do you make of that?

Yes, or more precisely, not necessarily an issue with longitudinal studies, but with almost all association studies. It is virtually impossible to control for all variables and many factors are not independent. Generally speaking, creating the "right" cohort is incredibly difficult and it is rare that you can find for example two identical groups of people where the only difference is the variable under investigation. Typically, you need a controlled study in order to really figure it out. But that is typically not feasible for longitudinal study, as folks won't e.g. stay on a specific diet for decades. Sometimes, you have "natural" experiments, in which something happens that creates good control and test groups. For example, there might be daycare centers having similar composition of kids but offering different diets. Or you can look at before and after of food labeling or banning of certain foods or rapid changes in dietary habits. For that reason, quite a few of the newer papers are looking at China, where there has been a massive change in diet. But going back to obesity, both factors, physical activity and diet. I think activity was slightly more controversial as it is sometimes difficult to establish the cost of additional expenditure over the basal metabolism, but I think the lit has coalesced around somewhat consistent finding that sedentary lifestyles would indeed require shaving off a few hundred calories to counteract weight gain in children. But the very basics are pretty straightforward, and ultimately it is the excess consumption of calories. Though to reverse obesity, diet is the main part that can lead to weight loss (though exercise is helpful in doing it in a healthy way).

Also from the article: However, I would agree that wild assumptions without even having the basics right are by definition speculative and as a method not scientific. For a proper scientific inquiry you have to start and end with accurate data and provide evidence for any assertions made. This takes time and effort, something that only few are willing to invest (including RFK Jr. and his foundation). But one of the big issues associated with a range of chronic diseases is obesity. And the reason for that is not precisely a mystery (though somewhat complex).

Also, some folks (as I think this statistic refers to) are mostly immune to symptomatic outbreaks, and are passive carriers but can transmit to vulnerable persons (think Mary Mallon, or Typhoid Mary). Aside from factors mentioned earlier which could promote colonization and invasion, an important factor in terms of symptoms and severity is how the immune system reacts to them. Sepsis can be facilitated by triggering pro-inflammatory cascades via lipopolysaccharides of the bacterium (Neisseria mengitidis) for example. I.e. much of the damages are in fact caused by the immune response (including subsequent endothelial damages, necrosis etc. once it reaches the bloodstream). I haven't followed the recent UK outbreak, but I don't really see clear information whether there is something special about this one, or just a confluence of factors that are causing this spike. Some have mentioned that potentially infected folks were sharing vapes, which not only exchanges infectious saliva, but also damages mucosal surfaces and might promote spread. Or there could be co-infections, with respiratory diseases which are still around. Some have speculated regarding a difference in virulence, but there is no evidence for that yet, either.

They can be, especially in cases were bacteria are growing slowly (so can be undetected for a longer time) or are highly dangerous. I.e. folks may be free of symptoms, but already carry the bacterium, and/or are at high risk of being infected. Early treatment can then prevent the bacteria from further proliferation and then cause symptoms. It is generally only done in high risk situations, as overuse of antibiotics is a big issue. In this case, I believe the reason is that there is a high risk that folks are already unknowingly exposed.

You know the answers. All adults were fired and all that is left is the Kindergarten and a ghoul.

Judging by various discussions as well as overall media consumption trends, I would not hold my breath. There is a reason why politicians are emboldened now and have no problem contradicting themselves within the same sentence. The ability to properly lie to your audience used to be a prerequisite for a politician. Now you can bank on short attention span to get away with murder, if you can SQUIRREL!

Note the absence of the word "intelligence" there. The import bit to understand for studies that look measure these things is that they use the baseline of the person. So they take for example two groups, give them tests, then have one of them do an exercise regimen whereas the control group does nothing. Those doing exercise may improve their baseline a bit from wherever they are, but they do not necessarily perform absolutely better than the control group. And intelligence is also a complicated term and it depends again what you measure. Many tests are aimed at finding invariate elements, which is quite a bit controversial as we do not know what is being measured. Another form of intelligence includes actually tests knowledge, where workout won't help you if you don't hit the books afterwards (or before).

Well, and bodybuilders often have a high protein diet, which is not precisely super-balanced. But really the text is more of a hodge-podge of general health advice. Also brain power is not a thing and certainly not the same as intelligence, as MigL indicated. I had to look that up. And now I regret it. Deeply. Maybe it is a good thing if AI ends humanity as clearly, there is not bottom to stupidity.

I think it started with the Safavid conquests during the 16th century during which Sunnis were also forcefully converted to Shia.

My apologies, I think I misread your argument. I think you meant that as example that despite being conquered by Macedonian empire, the Persians did not give up on Zoroastrianisms despite persecutions. And hence the end of the Sasanian empire was no different. However, there a few issues. The first is historical accuracy. While there are later text claiming the deed you mentioned, at least those texts I read a long time ago stressed that there were no contemporary sources to substantiate that. And at least one text have referred to how Persians (like everyone else) often embellished stories to make a point. Also, in the successor state (Seleucid Empire) there was I believe no evidence of persecution or other oppression of Zorostrianism. In contrast to Abrahamic traditions, conversion was not much of a thing, rather Hellinization was the process through which Greek culture spread. And then of course by 247 BC the Parthian Empire established itself and they and especially their successor (the Sasanian Empire) made Zoroastrianism a central religion. So effectively one cold see the Greek period (486 BC-247 BC) as an intermission in Persian Empires. However, the fall of the Sasanian Empire was the end of the chapter. As a side note, the islamization of the fallen empire had also the interesting effect of a "reverse Hellenization". I.e. Persian culture started to spread through the Muslim world during that time period.

You have to think about different levels of organization. On the smallest scale, muscles are made out of specific proteins. They form the fibers allowing to do contractions. One step up, we have muscle cells (or myocytes) that is a contractile cell type that has a lot of these proteins organized in a fashion, that allows the cells to contract as a whole. Then, another step up, we have muscle tissue, which contains a large number of cells, forming what we often talk about when we talk about a msucle (there are many forms which different functions, such as in the lining of our intestines and blood vessels, which are very different from e.g., the biceps). Fat also have multiple levels of organization, from the molecule (lipid) in each of our cells, to organized fat deposits, which are formed by specialized fat storage cells. So it is correct that a protein molecule can be converted to sugar and lipids (and vice versa) via our central metabolism, but that is not what bodybuilders mean. Rather they an increase in the mass of muscle tissue and a reduction of fat tissue. There is no direct conversion, as the increase in muscle mass is not directly linked to an equal reduction in fat. With that as basis, it is also clear why organs generally cannot turn into something else: most cells in our bodies are specialized (differentiated) and cannot suddenly become something else. There are minor and very interesting exception, where a cell can be become less differentiated and switch a role, and it is most frequently observed when e.g. there is a need for tissue repair. This is an interesting area of research (and funnily, has been observed in adipocytes) but again, this is not what folks mean in exercise-related contexts.

Well, I know some who call themselves independent but are Joe Rogan fans are critical of "woke" etc. They just don't like Trump and likely would vote in Vance, if they could. Not sure whether I would call that independent. I mean, in a way that is the brand for the GOP. As opposed to "I like to punch myself in the face" Dems. I think the key point here is "genuine" which always has been dicey in politics, but in recent times has been shipped off somewhere to be never seen again.

Folks doing silent reading the article can be read in about 20-45 mins, i.e. less than half the time needed for listening. But of course it depends on practice and other factors (such as legasthenia). But an important advantage is that you can much easier skim through parts of it and focus on the parts one might be interested in. In a video that is quite hard.

I think it would be tall order for something to have such a dominant cultural role for over 1000 years and not have it absorbed into the fabric of society. I.e. I find the hypothesis that somehow the Iranians were only ruled by Muslims but didn't become Muslims not terribly convincing, unless you have some evidence to support that. I am also not quite clear regarding your Alexander the Great story. Zoroastrianism was well and alive during hist time (he died 323 BC) and continued to do so, as I mentioned well beyond the fall of the Persian Sasnian Empire (around 650 AD). The Islamization dominantly happened in the 300-400 years thereafter.

The context was the Iranian Government. Also the person making the comment was Ali Vaez. He worked on the 2015 nuclear deal. He also is Iranian, and in his discussion he has been discussing some common misconceptions on how folks see Iranians. But I am not sure where you think it is ambiguous. He said, that the Iranian government has taken up the Palestinian cause and funded multiple Palestinian groups, including Hamas, but when asked whether that is due to ideological alignment or a means to deploy a strategic threat to military superior enemies, he mentions that it is more the latter- they would happily sacrifice Palestinians if it strengthens their position. Again, a strategic, rather than ideological decision. I will also add that the history of Persia/Iran with Islam is way older and one could probably point to the fall of the Sasanian Empire and the subsequent purge of zoroastrianism. By around the 10th century the majority of Persians would be Muslim. This would be a far cry from being alien to it. He also does talk about the different between the leadership and the Iranians. I also found a video from the discussion, if you are interested (I just lack the patience when reading is so much faster).

Strange. But a couple of passages I remembered to be interesting: In a way Ali Vaez (the guest) paints a picture of weaponized fundamentalism. The pragmatism was evident from the moment Khomeini took power:

"Have you listened to any good podcasts lately?"

There are folks who think that while there are fundamentalists in Iranian leadership, their actions have a very rational, geopolitical core. There is a diversity of articles about it, but a recent transcript of a podcast was actually very good in synthesizing a fair bit of different opinions. I thin it is worth a read, if only to have a better perspective on things over there. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/14/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-ali-vaez.html?unlocked_article_code=1.TVA.VRxD.dL5_cBX2un2a&smid=url-share

yeaaahhh about that. Let's just say take shallow breaths in my walk-in freezer.

No, it is coming mostly from the leadership and a loyal rural core. If you talk with Iranian students, you might be surprised how modern and westernized (not really the right term, but I can't think of something fitting right now) they are, especially the women and especially relative to some of their peers in the area.

Hold on, do you really think all we do is masturbate horses and perhaps dissecting dolphin clitorises https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(21)01544-X ? Sometimes we have to do non-fun stuff, too you know?