CharonY

Following an exchange regarding swing voters in another thread and in order not move things off-topic, there is a recent poll putting Biden behind Trump in a number of swing states. It is likely paywalled, but basically in Nevada, Georgia, Arizona, Michigan and Pennsylvania Trump is leading between 4-10 points, whereas in Wisconsin Biden is up by 2. Biden lost among nonwhites (while Trump was up among whites to begin with). Also, for some reasons folks still think that Trump be better for the economy and Israeli Palestinian conflict. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/06/us/politics/trump-biden-times-siena-poll.html So maybe 200 voters in WI are not enough this time...?

There are multiple articles including in Israeli press quoting Netanyahu and cabinet members that empowering Hamas is a strategy to weaken Fatah and any two state solutions. The assumption seemed to be that any violence from Hamas could be controlled. In the quotes religion was not mentioned. E.g. https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/ That being said, the settler violence in the West Bank has made it really clear that the hardliners also wish to squeeze out the Palestinians. While not planned, they certainly do seem to take opportunity of it.

That is the very definition of relative risk. The drug can have an extreme high risk for causing cancer, but as long as the treated condition has an even higher one it might be better to use it. You don't seem to understand why certain ABs are used. They are used based on efficacy, taking the bacterial species in consideration as well as local resistance patterns. Why do you think did I mention clarithromycin. I have posted a few papers already and you are free to read up more on why folks are using certain therapies. It is a bit more difficult and not all act the same way. I would have to read up more to see what is known about mechanics or whether most of the data is outcome based. But what is known about long-term the culprit seems to be (in part) our immune system. Massive disruptions in the intestinal microbiome is associate with inflammation which in turn is linked to cancer-promoting pathways. However, it is not precisely my specialty and I am not familiar with the latest knowledge in that link.

As you might have missed it, matched studies in the 90s short-term treatments in children did not find an effect. Conversely, long-term treatment with a rather wide range of antibiotics have been associated with increased cancer risk (in part because of how they affect our gut microbiome). As such, I am still not sure why you pick out this specific antibiotic, as what we discuss here is applicable to many of the others as well. Or again to make the point, no drug is safe, and if you want to be concerned at this level, you should be concerned about all of them. Perhaps I should summarize it differently. The question is not whether a drug is toxic or potentially harmful. The question is are folks on average better of receiving a treatment or not. In cases of H. pylori infections, especially if folks have other risk factors for gastric cancer, the answer seems to be yes.

You keep repeating the assertion that we need to know absolute risk levels, but as I mentioned many, many times, this is not how it works. You look at whether folks taking a drug have worse or better outcomes, as I and SJ have been saying. Studies have shown that H. pylori eradication on average reduces gastric cancer risks. I.e. depending on what resistances are present, treatment with metronidazole or clarithromycin are often indicated. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-2-200907210-00009 https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2016.01.028 In other words, as long as there is no other study suddenly figuring out that metronidazole is somehow responsible for more cancer cases that we have seen so far (I believe we have talked about issue with finding negative results) the risk assessments suggests that treatment is more beneficial.

You said that humans evolved from apes, which is simply wrong. Evolution refers to a changes in gene pools over time. Same-sex sexual behaviour in all its forms have been observed in about 1500 species. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41290-x Species went extinct for a wide range of reasons not just during major extinction events and none of that addresses your assertion that there is some magic instinct preventing it.

I will add that fomite transmission is difficult to verify outside of controlled infections. Especially when airborne pathways are more important. Based on what we know about viral characteristics, fomite transmissions is certainly possible. There is one study showing in animal models that bedding is a transmission route (though less effective than airborne transmission). There was a study earlier this year conducted during the alpha wave, where upper respiratory tracts and hands of index cases as well as surfaces were sampled over time and associated with household transmission. Interestingly, they found that transmission events were more strongly correlated to viral presences in the hands of index cases, the hands of infected persons and household surfaces, rather than respiratory tract samples. While not conclusive, it might suggest that in household infections (at least when folks know that there is a positive case and might take precautions, such as wearing masks) fomite infections might play a role. Or at least that it cannot be ruled out. I forgot the authors of the report but I am moderately certain that it was in the Lancet or Lancet Microbe.

I think you are still missing the point regarding how risk is evaluated. The reason why it is controversial is because animal studies suggest an effect, but so far no evidence in humans have emerged. And as also said before, the real benchmark is whether a treatment provides a net benefit over a disease, and not whether it is perfectly safe. Almost no drug is. All antibiotics have harmful effects, some rather severe, and sometimes can both, suppress and promote cancer via different mechanisms (chloramphenicol comes to mind). Other drugs, like cisplatin for cancer treatment have a risk to promote secondary cancer, yet without, folks might succumb to the first cancer. All it really means is that you should only take the drug when needed. And this is why also vaccines are so important, because for most, the risk of adverse effect is way lower than therapeutic intervention. And besides, there are also chemicals that our body synthesizes and needs, which are anticipated to be carcinogenic, you cannot get rid of those, either.

Good thing that science is not opinions, then. Homosexual behaviour has been observed in many species. Conversely, instincts that somehow senses extinction level events and adjusts behaviour accordingly are unheard of, and likely doesn't work well, considering the number of extinct species.

I suspect the main question would be what bats are.

Human are apes and together with other extant apes, they share a common ancestor. There are many fossils showing several levels of gradual changes from our ancestor to now. The limitation is not the presence or absence of a miraculous substance but the mere fact that fossilization is a rare event and discovery of fossils even rarer. That is not a theory.

While I am not disagreeing with the sentiment, I think we can largely agree that murdering children and non-combatants is deplorable. It matters little in the end if it is done targeted or willingly as collateral. Both actions fuel the cycle of hatred and it takes folks with a superior moral compasses of which there are many outspoken Palestinians as well as Israelis. Unfortunately, they are not in the majority and there are folks benefitting from the carnage. I will also note that settlers and IDF have killed a fair amount of Palestinians in the West Bank over the years, so getting rid of Hamas is apparently not a sufficient solution.

I do appreciate that Israel (even if they are not innocent in the events) are between a rock and a hard place. That being said, I read an interesting opinion piece (by Friedman, but surprisingly thoughtful) where he contrasts the actions with the 2008 terror attack in Mumbai which was carried out by a group with links to Pakistan's military intelligence.

I think that the messaging at least starting with the 24h threat by Israeli forces has created a sense that no good will come out of it. Even no communications from Gaza is likely going to interpreted in a negative way. And realistically, the only positive scenario I can see where Israel can start a PR blitz is if they manage to free the hostages.

I think that heavily depends on what sources you look at. Humanitarian organizations (Unicef for example) seem to focus on the humanitarian crisis. The issue that the Israelis have (I think) is that they do not have a good morning after narrative. They have been attacked and everything now is framed on retaliation. The most positive interpretation here is the self-defense narrative. Yet even so, I have not read much beyond incapacitating Hamas. Multiple voices (including Israelis) have wondered what is going to happen after (if) that is achieved. What is going to happen to the displaced? Who is going to govern Gaza? I think the immediate response to the terror attack has raised sufficient international concerns regarding the humanitarian cost that it is not going to be an all-in support anymore. Sure, Hamas is using their own folks as victims, an I think the world has mostly moved on from accepting total war scenarios where an unlimited number of civilian casualties can be just ignored (which to some degree happened during the Iraq wars). Another aspect of the media wars is that Israel's leadership is embroiled in a blame war (and comes in the wake of political strife surround Israel's judiciary). So a unified message is a bit hard to get out.

Sorry, my sentence was ambiguous. I meant to say that a maximum age (or term limit) might not be a bad thing.

The issue here is that we have got savage targeted murder of innocents on the one side and collateral murder of innocents on the other. Folks are suffering, while those responsible keep fueling the cycle.

How about you ask that the Israeli settlers in the West Bank? What emerges as a common thread through multiple reports is that Netanyahu's policy of enabling Hamas (and starving Fatah) in order to torpedo a two-state solution spectacularly backfired. It seems that the hope was the occasional (minor to moderate) threat from Hamas, to justify a hardline approach. That, would fuel the attacks and keep things looping (and at the same time, make things harder for the more accommodating factions) I will also state that folks tend to support authoritarian figures when they perceive threat. We see that happening even in stable countries throughout Europe. I can only imagine how much that is amplified with an actual threat present.

It might not be a bad thing. Was there a report that folks were using plastic surgery (not that I think that matters).

I mean sure, there is also that, because who needs representation when you can have a convoluted system that based on 200 yr old considerations. But as a whole not only the mechanism is silly, but also the fact that folks have a choice between someone old and unexciting and someone old and on multiple criminal indictments.

It is still a bit early, but general polls show that they are unfortunately very close (with Trump leading in some). Considering all that has happened, it is rather disheartening.

Depends on what you bake. When you start cold you obviously have a transition time when things heat up, which can be a good or bad thing. If you have something that is rather cold for example it can help to get the inside more cooked without scorching the outside (though you could achieve that we adjusting heat, too). For products where you e.g. have a lot of yeast, it can lead to over-proofing (e.g. spilling things out of your form). Very thin (and other) baking goods that need high heat for a short amount of time, are more likely to dry out before being cooked through.

OK, we should clarify at this point that we are all swansont (including yourself). Anything else is just delusional.

That is true, but this marginalizes the roles of supplements even more. Generally, you find little or conflicting evidence of benefits. There is the theoretical consideration, which includes poor Western diets with high energy but low nutritional value but even there folks were generally not able to show benefits in any consistent way. For certain groups, e.g. aging folks or folks with restricted diets might see more benefits, but again, that still is a bit more theory than evidence-based. Recent-ish reviews on that matter: https://doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.m2511 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18178897 And one on vitamin D (which is often supplemented) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41574-021-00593-z And here is an older discussion on the subject: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-159-12-201312170-00011 Ideally one would monitor the level and trends of an individual and also check the impact on supplements if the levels appear to be at the lower end (even if it does not go into deficiency territory). But unfortunately we are not where personalized medicine is really a thing.

It is important to note that the difference between groups is not larger than within (and depending on which groups you compare, can be smaller, depending on how diverse a population is). That is not quite accurate. The original assumption was indeed that that during the spread from Africa to Eurasia folks mingled with Neanderthals, and the back-migration would only contribute a tiny amount into African populations. So the estimates were that Europeans and East Asians have about 1-4% (or something in that order) of Neanderthal DNA, and only a small part of the African population had any or close to none. However, a series of investigations a few years ago have shown a much higher proportion of Neanderthal DNA in African population (though only about a third of non-African populations). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.01.012 The misidentification of part of the Altai Neanderthal genome has interesting implications on why the East Asian population were (potentially wrongly) associated with a higher Neanderthal proportion than European ones (essentially Neanderthals might have picked up DNA from modern humans based on a failed migration from Africa to the Middle East around 100k years ago and thus resulted in misattribution).