CharonY

24 minutes ago, nec209 said:

At one time many religion where very anti wealthy, rich and big businesses but now it seems so many religions support the ultra rich and big businesses?

Religions are big business and have been for many centuries (varying to degrees by region and religion a bit perhaps). It was way before the Soviet Union (or even Russia) existed. 

Generally speaking these simplification do not do the complexity real justice. Every single cell has more different processes going on in parallel than even the most complex factory. Thinking about scope, we got about 30-ish trillion cells in our body.  I.e. if you equated one cell with one factory, our body would be the the equivalent of 30 trillion factories. In the world there are only about 10 million factories. Or compare it to the about 100-400 billion stars in the Milky Way. These are orders of magnitude off. 

Our brain alone has about 80-ish billion neurons and roughly a similar number of glial cells so whatever scale you are thinking about, you likely have to expand it by a fair bit more.

Compared to other areas, being famous is less of an issue. We always fall back to data and experiments. Ultimately, even if folks do get defensive, the self-correction kicks in eventually. In other areas this is more commonly not the case. I.e., the system is not perfect, but at least better than elsewhere.

5 hours ago, kenny1999 said:

Then what could be the possible problem of expired pesticides that have broken down or oxidized? Just render useless or be bad to health?

I think pretty much all pesticides are bad for health to various degrees to begin with.

20 hours ago, TheVat said:

Another problem with decreased potency is that, if it's an antibiotic, say amoxicillin, you might actually help any offending bacteria develop an immunity to that compound by offering a weakened sample.

So, the conventional wisdom is that if you shorten the treatment you can promote the selection of resistant bacteria. Generally speaking there is a minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) at which they inhibit bacterial growth which is dependent on the strain, but can also be influenced by their growth condition (in the lab standardized media are used to measure MIC, which might not be exactly the same in the body).

Now if the effective concentration of the compound drops below MIC, the effects are actually a little bit weird. If you look at defined cultures, e.g. mixing non-resistant with resistant bacteria, you still see a selective effect. But if you take a more complex sample, say fecal cultures or wastewater, the studies have been quite mixed whether there is a selective pressure (and/or there are other factors that would override it). It is fairly fascinating, actually.

The answer is for the most part, we do not know. Pharma companies have to provide expiration date based on specific testing regimen, that vary by region. But roughly, they are stored at specified conditions and then tested for quality and purity after time has expired. So if a company wants to claim e.g. a 3yr shelf life, they have to provide test data for samples that shows that the quality is maintained for at least 3 years.

There are also accelerated schemes (usually only allowed for claimed stability times of less than 3 years, I believe) where samples are stored at what is called accelerated temperature (to increase degradation rate).

Samples are analyzed at set intervals and based on that information manufacturer have to show what the maximum time is where they ensure no drop in quality. 

Unfortunately that data is generally not publicly available, AFAIK, so we cannot really project stability much. That being said, these estimates are conservative (as they have to show no difference between the beginning and whatever expiry date they want to submit). And degradation is rarely sudden. So even after expiry there is usually a fair amount of potency left, that drops over time. The one thing to look out for is if there are known degradation products that might be harmful, and there was some discussion about that surrounding tetracycline, for example (but as far as I recall it was no clearly linked to the drug).

On 7/13/2023 at 12:46 PM, Alfred001 said:

But have the studies been done? Is there an adequately powered study with adequate followup that allows us to conclusively say there is no increase in cancer risk or that it is trivially small? Or is it simply that we haven't done the studies so we don't know how much we are potentially increasing people's risk of cancer?

I have answered that before and also explained why there are generally no such studies (or very few). You cannot easily prove a negative. The papers that I shared have shown the link between bacterial infections and cancers, and the fact that AB treatment reduces risk. I have also already mentioned that long-term AB treatment is associated with increased cancer risk. And again, the reason why we accept this risk is because the dangers are higher of not treating it. And you can again repeat the claim that this does not satisfy you and I can again repeat that this is how medical treatments work, you choose the lesser poison. And then I am going again to point to the paper in the 90s where they follow-up folks some 30k folks for 7 years and did not find elevated risks and then you will say that this does not satisfy you and demand a better study. 

And then I will say again that you are missing the point, as all medications are dangerous and harmful to various levels and you have to look at medical outcomes (again pointing to long-term risks of cancer and other diseases during AB treatments).

If health risks of H. pylori were unchanged after AB treatment, ABs should not be indicated. And if there are other ABs that are equally effective with fewer known harms (and again, this could be just because they have not been found yet...) they would generally be used instead (but from what I know, resistance patterns are often what determines the selection nowadays).

And yes, sometimes it takes a while for the regulators to change recommendations, but so far there has been no smoking gun to show worse outcome in folks taking the treatment. And then we probably start the next page with again the same arguments. So unless there is a new argument coming I see this issue as resolved (if not to your satisfaction, but so is life).

Scroll up to the papers I provided as a starting point. But to repeat myself:- antibiotics regimen have shown overall reduction in cancer risk, including metronidazole treatment (though not specifically testing for that). Combined with the fact that earlier studies in humans did not showed a strong effect, suggest that the relative higher risk is to have H. pylori infections. Since you might also have missed it, the treatment is selected by multiple indicators, including local resistance, potential side effects/allergies and so on. 

This is so bad. +1

8 hours ago, MigL said:

Palestinians wanted their own state, so Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005 leaving the PA as government; with a border ( fence ) separating the two states.
Gaza could have built resorts along its beautiful beaches, drilled for off-shore gas, and have a thriving economy. They didn't even try.
Instead they rejected the PA and 'elected' Hamas.
A government that hasn't had any elections since, stockpiles food and medicine for its fighters, and builds its hideouts under schools and hospitals. Never mind the people.
Some 'government' !

That seems like a very slanted reading of the situation. For starters, Hamas ended up with more seats due to the electoral system, but overall they barely had more votes compared to Fatah. As we all know, Hamas then later on seized power and murdered their opposition. Inquisitive might then ask the question why folks elected Hamas instead of building those beautiful beaches. 

Well, for starters many Palestinians viewed the Fatah as corrupt, anti-Western sentiments were high due to their support for Israel, the occupation of the West Bank continued. Hamas stoked these sentiments, they cast themselves as the principled faction (make Palestine great again) that are not subservice to Israeli dominance. A general sentiment was that Fatah was toothless and Israel would be unwilling to negotiate with them anyway (and Hamas fostered that sentiment by conducting suicide bombings which turned Israel away from negotiations). In a way it is ironic that the Bush administration and Hamas were pushing for elections, whereas the Fatah and Israel lobbied against due to the rising influence of Hamas. Some articles around that time have indicated that especially the younger section of Gazans were not that politically motivated, but they were driven by disillusion. Probably similar sentiments that resulted in Brexit. Things obviously changed once Hamas started their brutal takeover and resulting isolation.

Now switching to the West Bank we do see some economic benefits and a rise of a middle-class, supported by NGOs. Yet unemployment started to rise since 2000 and remain high, and they are under the continuous whim of Israeli settlement policies. Gaza then is used as a whip to keep them in line. At several points including in 2014, Hamas was severely weakened, but Netanyahu and the Israeli right-wing faction essentially cast them lifelines to keep the West Bank in check. Under these circumstances it is hard not to understand why the Palestinians think that Israel has too much influence over their lives.

16 minutes ago, mistermack said:

This is so pathetic. Air strikes are ok. Killing women and children at long range is ignored.

It clearly isn't. You will note that folks here are for the most part saying that the response even to that massacre perpetuated by Hamas is not justified. The deaths and violence in the West Bank has been mentioned a few times. What folks object to is taking sides in a situation with no moral high ground. This is not the same as endorsing any of the violent actions. The contrary, actually.

19 hours ago, CharonY said:

I hope we can at least collectively agree that anything resulting in the deaths of children and innocents is not desirable.

I think there are generational changes happening that society is not really realizing and methodologies might not be adjusting to it yet. On the small scale we are seeing things like loss of attention and ability to read longer or more complex texts, but I suspect there are more complicated things going on (beyond the usual stuff related to getting old and complaining about the new generation).

15 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Sure they would. But not if they broke out of Auschwitz and went on the rampage, killing women and children.

Specifically targeting vulnerable folks, even. I think that there is an assumption that a prior atrocity is a legitimate justification for any forms of atrocities that follow, which seems like an attempt of moral justification. This is also an excuse made by authoritarian and violent regimes in order to justify their action and wash themselves off any moral responsibility. I will note that the Nazis used self-defense as an excuse to exterminate Jews.

Now in the case of the Palestinians the current situation is clearly untenable and the situation in the West Bank especially in recent times has clearly shown the attempt of Netanyahu's government to further marginalize them. While there are clashes with casualties on both sides, there is little doubt who holds the bigger cudgel and Palestinian children have died due to settler violence. This all pales now to the situation in Gaza, but taking a bold stance with endorsing unlimited violence against no-combatants is not the right way.

As mentioned before, all things considered it should be astonishing that Trump is in the race at all. But then the world has turned into a dark comedy with an idiotic script.

In an interview with Hamas leadership, it was re-affirmed that the violence and deaths are the goal to reignite broader violence for the Palestinian cause

Quote

Thousands have been killed in Gaza, with entire families wiped out. Israeli airstrikes have reduced Palestinian neighborhoods to expanses of rubble, while doctors treat screaming children in darkened hospitals with no anesthesia. Across the Middle East, fear has spread over the possible outbreak of a broader regional war.

But in the bloody arithmetic of Hamas’s leaders, the carnage is not the regrettable outcome of a big miscalculation. Quite the opposite, they say: It is the necessary cost of a great accomplishment — the shattering of the status quo and the opening of a new, more volatile chapter in their fight against Israel.

It was necessary to “change the entire equation and not just have a clash,” Khalil al-Hayya, a member of Hamas’s top leadership body, told The New York Times in Doha, Qatar. “We succeeded in putting the Palestinian issue back on the table, and now no one in the region is experiencing calm.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/08/world/middleeast/hamas-israel-gaza-war.html?smid=url-share

What kind of disqualifies them as freedom fighters is the fact that they are a) killing non-combatants and b) sacrificing their own people to elevate their cause.

50 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I think it's a fool's errand trying to find some kind of original sin in the region that will somehow decisively determine who gets to be the good guys and bad guys. 

I think that this runs counter to finding actual solutions. And it seems that the folks that want to resolve it are getting perpetually drowned out.

I hope we can at least collectively agree that anything resulting in the deaths of children and innocents is not desirable. And if we use that as a guiding principle, I doubt anyone has much of a moral high ground here.

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...? 

4 hours ago, geordief said:

Do you not have suspicions that the Israeli government went soft on Hamas  in part because they had religious right partners in government  who may have felt sympathy to fellow fanatics "across the aisle"?

I mean ,if they had a part in encouraging Hamas at first did they feel safer/more comfortable with a religious opponent rather than a secular one?

If this intelligence failure is all cock up and no conniving at all then that will be irrelevant.

 

But I have a very low opinion of Netanyahu and am prepared to be shocked at his role (if any) in what happened

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.

4 minutes ago, Alfred001 said:

If you make a study and compare a group in which H pylori was not eradicated to a group in which it was eradicated with metro you're gonna know the absolute risk lmao.

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. 

5 minutes ago, Alfred001 said:

And this is all ignoring the fact that METRONIDAZOLE IS NOT THE ONLY ANTIBIOTIC IN THE WORLD. It's not metro or don't treat the infection. You can treat it with different antibiotics.

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. 

10 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Even there, it's not the mtz causing the cancer, is it?. The mtz kills the microbiome, then the gut is open to anything carcinogenic.

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.

13 minutes ago, Chris Sawatsky said:

Everything else evolved out of one form into another.

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.

On 10/28/2023 at 9:27 AM, TheVat said:

Research didn't find evidence of fomite transmission of COVID.  The antiseptic industry made out like bandits, though.

I suspect research will discover COVID did create a generation of germophobes, who will suffer lifelong immune impairment as a result.

 

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.

1 hour ago, Alfred001 said:

That's what we'd debated for two pages. You claiming no effect exists or is so small as to not matter, me saying that, as the paper says, there's inadequate evidence to know how big the effect is.

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.