CharonY

Panama was one of those I had in mind, but I was thinking more broadly in terms of destabilization of countries over a range of different interest. Other examples were coups either directly or US support in Nicaragua, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador and Guatemala, just to name a few. In terms of economic interest, the textbook example was Guatemala, where the United Fruit Company lobbied the US government (with key administration folks having a clear conflict of interest) for intervention against breaking the UFCOs monopoly by the Guatemalan government. That overthrow, incidentally is also associated with the Monroe doctrine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine), which effectively calls for an American hegemony. The Trump administration has alluded to that by calling their current actions as part of the "Donroe Doctrine".

While I agree, I would add that this is how the US did act like that (directly or indirectly), especially in South America, and they have been criticized for that on grounds of legality, too. Some of the differences are the assumption (whether justified or not) that the US were ultimately the good guys (e.g. under the banner of enforcing human rights). This time around, however, no similar justification were presented and rather than at least pretending to support self-determination, they outright said the quiet part loudly.

I am taking bets that he will claim that he solved the drug crisis.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/01/03/world/trump-united-states-strikes-venezuela As you probably have heard, the US has conducted strikes in Venezuela and have brought president Maduro and his wife to the US to stand trial. Trump has declared that the US will (somehow) govern Venezuela and suggested US control of Venezuela's oil reserves. There is a lot of speculation of the reasons for those actions as well as concerns regarding its legality and the type of precedence it sets (and might not be limited to China or Russia).

This is more editorial work as peer reviewers wouldn't have had access to that level of information. I would call it one of the self-correction mechanisms of science.

A review paper on glyphosate safety from 2000 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230099913715) has now been retracted. It turned out that the authors overemphasized unpublished Monsanto data, while not including other papers that were published at that time. While it is not unusual that reviews might omit papers (accidental or by choice), recent litigations have shown that parts of the paper were in fact written by Monsanto scientist, which was not disclosed. See the retraction notice here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230025002387

I am not sure if he has changed much- he just got into unfathomable and unchecked amount of power. I think it does show how the stock market can be based on faith more than on facts, depending on the shareholders. It is, after all, just a representation of the collective believes of stock buyers. Some will be rational, others not so much. And some will likely bank on the lack of rationality of some of those buyers. Musk strategies has for some time to bank on the magic of software, specifically machine learning, focusing on data, rather than engineering or programming. The only way it plays off for robotaxis, if the software gets so good that it can rival the technical capabilities of e.g. Waymo. Then, the Teslas already on the street could, in theory be switched to a giant robotaxi fleet. Fundamentally, the clever part of the business model is that Tesla is able to use customers as prototype testers and collect their data for training. It matters little that Teslas currently still cannot really self-drive and that other car companies have made improvements over them. That being said, a lot of folks are banking on Musk's promise, that his machine learning to the max method will find its way everywhere, including the Tesla robot and other products. None of his promises regarding price and timelines are true, of course but there are still enough folks who for some reason, trust that somehow it will all pan out in the end without needing any evidence to support that. In fact, Tesla was always sold as a pie in the sky company, its evaluation makes zero sense, if you think about it as a car company. They represent less 5% of all cars in the market, but its market cap (an insane 1.37 trillion) is more than 8 or so biggest companies such as Toyota, BYD, GM and Mercedes combined). I.e. it is a company that fundamentally sells hype and promises of a magic future, and none of the quantitative indicators (e.g., decline in sales and profits) are really part of the equation. Also, a one final thought- there was some justified outrage of Musk's Nazi sympathy. However, if we really want to dive in the depth of depravity, I would point to the fact that he was instrumental in dismantling USAID. This performative theater with a chain saw resulted in the loss of ca. 500,000 to 1 million lives (as of 2025) with models prediction up to 14 million deaths by 2030. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)01186-9/fulltext

I am not sure whether that has been addressed in the video, but the chocolate in NA, including Canada usually has less cocoa, but way more sugar and other vegetable fats even from the same brands. The sugar is the most noticeable difference, when you are used to (most) European chocolate, which includes those from the UK. Polish chocolate used to be poor quality, but the last time I had some was in the 90s. That being said, sugar content has been increasing also in Europe over time.

That is a good question, and might depend on jurisdiction. In Europe Monsanto's GM maize was first approved but was then banned in Germany later on, in part (IIRC) because of the possibility that it could spread. In believe in the EU or maybe UK there were lawsuits back in the 2000s, regarding unauthorized release of GM crops (but I think it involved Bayer). The high level lawsuits that I remember that Monsanto won was (again, IIRC) based on the fact that the farmer deliberately harvested and replanted seeds, after discovering resistant plants on his field, which was then deemed patent infringement. But perhaps a more important reason could be that Monsanto is not a grower and it is more likely that the invading crops would originate from another farm. So if there was a lawsuit, it would more likely against that farm rather than Monsanto. Another issue is that unless there is something that visually makes the GM crop stand out, many farmers simply wouldn't know as they generally do not test them.

I think it is now more important than ever to wait for official verification. Even without AI, internet rumors had a way to spread misinformation and it is only getting worse.

Moderator NoteThere is so much misinformation including claims of violating basic thermodynamics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fuel_cell). Fundamentally, this post appears an attempt to spread disinformation, especially with regard to vaccinations, thus endangering public health. Don't bring this up again.

And even that is problematic and at best inconsistent. For example, Type I is characterized by accessibility, i.e. starch to which enzymes cannot get to. Type II otoh is based on origin (e.g. raw starch from plant species), forming resistant granules. Type III are generally spontaneously generated precipitated starches with some some-crystalline structres and then IV are or modified starches. This classification might make sense in food sciences, but in a microbial context it is pretty much meaningless. Within each of these groups you have different chemical compositions, which will be utilized and processed differently by bacteria, for example.

I don't think you are wrong (especially regarding Monsanto, the legal trap is pretty famous and has made its way into textbooks), but links to cancer are notoriously difficult to establish. Fundamentally, pretty much all herbicides are toxic, but those with acute toxicity are just easier to spot. For residential use there is a discussion to be had what would be wise to use close to where you live. However, a bigger issue is the often massive exposure in agricultural use. The controversy here (and my reading might be a bit outdated) is mostly whether Roundup has a higher risk than other herbicides, and there the evidence is somewhat sketchy. There is also a (IMO) much bigger issue is that as a whole there are massive testing gaps in toxicity testing. For example, often only the active ingredient are tested and regulated, yet the overall health impact can vary massively depending on what else is in the formulation.

I think that this is a good point and also a reminder that most food studies are association studies with very limited understanding of underlying mechanisms. There are also trials, which are better controlled but are generally also only limited to measurement of clinical endpoints, without mechanistic insights. This issue also extends to our understanding of the role of the gut microbiota in human health. As such, these types of studies are frequently are associated with limited reproducibility, which, I assume, will amplify if we look at more diverse populations. Moreover, extrapolation of such data will more likely than not result in predictions that do not turn out to be true.

I am not sure whether that alone would be infringement. It could frame ordinary requests as infringement of freedom. OTOH, I can see how folks might think about such requests in terms of infringement (in either direction) and could be insufferably self-righteous about it. I think infringement really starts once there are (by)laws that would penalize certain actions or lack thereof. I.e. closer to what is described in the first couple of posts in this thread. I think in terms of liability there it is a reasonable assumption that if something is indeed harmful, its use would be restricted for private to some degree (there is also a whole issue regarding the evidence for glyphosates). .

Also, there are different compositions of RS. The lit seems a bit of a mess to me and less resolved compared to even the complex situation you find in environmental communities.

So, fundamentally yes, but things are (as usual) quite a bit more complicated. There are different types of resistant starches that are associated with different shifts in the microbiota, as well as SCFA being produced. I will also note that while there are plenty of associations between SCFA and gut health, they are predominantly derived from animal models and the mechanistic understanding is still lacking. I.e. there is good reason to believe that this might yield health benefits, we have only limited human data and we don't really understand how it might happen.

The media remind me as some addict chasing the next high- except that influences have flooded the landscape with synthetics that keep everyone so oversaturated and sedated, folks wouldn't react to anything, anymore.

I think they should have been- I have seen that in the news and certainly it was in the pile of papers for me to read. There were at least two papers of relevance. One earlier published in Science with Worobey and Anderson as corresponding authors back in 2022 and a later one which had a different methodology and from what I remember had a stronger evidence base published in Cell (where they tried to reconstruct and associate genotypes from genetic fragments). I suspect that by 2024 most SARS-CoV-2 related news were not elevated that much anymore, unless you are paying active/professional attention (apropos fragmented information systems..).

Maybe a comment here, the genome itself would provided only limited information on the source. It is more important to see where they were found. Near-perfect evidence would be the detection of the precise genotype in a sample recovered from an animal during or prior the outbreak, for example. The most direct evidence was a re-analysis of Huanan market samples and swabs (published last year). These analyses strengthened the argument of a wet-market zoonotic spillover. I find the evidence compelling and would put that as the most likely scenario, however the level of evidence is insufficient to entirely rule out other scenarios. Elevating that to the level of "truth" as outlined in OP is highly problematic. In fact, elevating these conclusions to "truths" are IMO one of the reason why trust in public health and science is declining. As researchers, we need to be clear about levels of uncertainty and understand the limits of our conclusion and communicate with nuance. I think the old adage of keeping things simple is not working in the modern, fragmented information (and disinformation) system.

Also the immune response goes down with age, without any external input. I think some posters should familiarize themselves with the concept of senescence. The only way to avoid it is to die young.

It is weird to frame it as an admittance, as the discussion is about strong linkage of IQ to race, and it was never about whether there is any genetic basis. For a while the discussion has been heavily moving goalposts around, as the issue of building racial groups has not been addressed, nor whether the measures between groups are useful. Except of course, lifestyles like the San people have likely been part of our evolutionary history, whereas the ability to strive just by performing well in abstract tests is a new dev development. The former is more likely to leave signatures in our genome, rather than the recent events. But sure, if we declare everything that does not fit our narrative as beside the point, then the argument is iron clad. But it is also not worthy of discussion.

In a way yes, but I will acknowledge that in the past that has been basically seen as a fact. The book/paper from Rushton and other had been highly influential in the 90s, and I recall some lectures that had those ideas baked in. As a biologist I was quit a fair bit dismayed and it was a minor reason why I switched from my initial interests towards genetics and related subjects.

Again, you are missing the key point. There is genetic influence, for sure, but the brain has high plasticity and we do not know how interactions between genetics, environment and development interacts. The idea that some set of genes sets the gold bar for everything is simply not in line with how we understand physiology anymore. Moreover, it is possible that even in utero exposure is more critical than the genetic basis but the two would be almost impossible to disentangle (as you cannot test fetuses). And yet folks have found that certain elements like literacy, vocabulary testing and so on have a huge impact on a wide range of IQ tests. They are not uniform nor as universal. They are stable in scoring withing a given population, but comparing between has been a long-standing debate. There are folks claiming universality, but it is by no measure the consensus. And as more studies were coming up, the more it has been questioned. In other words, the certainty you express is only shared by a smaller group of researchers and the evidence has been mounting against them for decades. At this point, it looks more like ignoring than considering. After all, it has been mentioned a few times.

We don't know that. As these things might co-develop it is difficult to figure out how one might put a boundary on the other. Again, no one claimed it was purely determined by the environment and you have ignored some of the early factors that can contribute to the further development. For example a telling study would be (as mentioned) a twin study with children form an affluent, highly developed household, split at some point after birth and one played into a developing country. That is not how IQ measurements were designed. Originally it was used to determine cognitive deficiencies. The g factor is a theoretical construct formulated by Spearman, as an assumed totality of general abilities. Essentially it was found that a lot of different tests would correlate with other, and the model was then, that there might be a common underlying factor (that might be connected to all of them). Pretty much from then on, there were discussion of which and how performance measures would correlate with g and why. Newer studies also found particular weaknesses as these models were built in a particular context and especially extremely different backgrounds (studies on San people were these measures just do not fit reality, as mentioned above- if they were so mentally deficient, why would they survive in such hostile environments for so long? ). There were a few tests that were eventually developed to circle around the concept of the g factor, such as Raven's assessment which is often used as part of IQ tests. But again, for each there is a large body of lit discussing where and how they are applicable. As a whole there is not clear unified method that assesses g, but a lot of different tests that are somehow associated and in contrast to a true biological trait like e.g. height, the g factor is a composite model that is in itself defined by test methods rather than a material basis. There are there fore no clear mechanistic principles or even an objective or biological concept of g. That as a whole is in part why this area of research often is put under the soft sciences umbrella as we are dealing with correlates of concepts, rather something that we can isolate and measure directly (such as DNA sequences). I would go further and reiterate that definitions of g are much vaguer than what we would typically see in biology, where we look at physiological and phenotypic traits (and those associations can already be tricky- the height example you provided is a good one). One of the issues with Rushton is that in order to link IQ test measures to biology, he tried to pull in concepts like r and k selection strategy and apply to human populations. The issue here, of course is that with technical advances it became clear very rapidly that racial boundaries as set by him were not biologically verifiable and almost by definition differential selection in those groups would make even less sense. Good example, and there are more such as how heritability increases with socioeconomic status (I believe the author was Turkheimer and others, around 2000ish). The hypothesis was that at lower socioeconomic status environmental variability has a higher impact on the measures, but once a certain threshold is reached (where basically living standards become normalized) the measured variation is then more likely based on residual biology. From an experimental standpoint that makes a lot of sense, but also of course questions the ability of the tests to measure the "pure" biological basis. But I think it is suffice to say that the field has enough uncertainty that strong assumptions are more likely than not to fall flat.