CharonY

I recall that about ten years back there was a story about a printed apartment complex in China. I do wonder what shape they are in now.

Yeah my lab was too ahead of the curve and funding dried up. Now it is an issue everywhere... There are also concerns like air contaminants from roads and traffic or volatiles generated by cooking. It is one of the issues where the concentrations and levels are of concern, but solutions are difficult as they very much cut into lifestyles or are simply not addressible. A recent issue in the news were gas stoves, for example. Then you got the ongoing release of particulates including from mud or other building materials as well as carpet, or textiles. Luckily I don't work in this field, but I helped out a colleague in biological interpretation of data many years back and, well, homes are filthy. I try not to think too much about it.

Yes, the bioaccumulation is pretty much the main thing that creates concerns, mostly related to long-term exposure. Plastics are not the only example, but essentially all non-biodegradable products, like PFAS fall into that category. I have worked on the latter and it took many years to accumulate enough evidence to link them to unfavorable outcomes. For plastics we are still fairly far away though right now the hype is a bit outpacing the evidence. That being said, it might chance in a decade. However, a bit of a difference to me is that while plastics and PFAS have gained use since the 50s the evidence we have seems to suggest that PFAS exposure increased since the 70s markedly, especially among higher income folks. While we lack the historic data on nanoplastics, there is good reason to believe that our exposure was higher for a longer time, considering all the routine contact with plastics we have. It is possible that there is also an accelerated exposure, but AFAIK there is no longitudinal data. The reason why that is relevant is that in the PFAS study we were able to identify groups of folks who had overall lower exposure, even when accounting for age and other factors. With plastics my suspicion is that it is going to be very difficult. Folks with low plastic exposure are likely going to have a fairly radically different lifestyle, as it is just so unavoidable. It is then difficult to assess if any differences in health are due to plastic exposure or something else.

I suspect that in intact leaf oxidation should be lower, though I am not certain whether it really translates to the final tea. I always prefer loose leaf, too, though. That being said and I am not sure whether we discussed it elsewhere, there is justifiable skepticism regarding the immediate threat of nanoplastics for health. I think in general the major issue is environmental impact. The research in non-acute toxicity is always tricky, especially if we look into long-term effects and the data at this point is still not particularly strong. It is also problematic because the exposure is going on for many decades so we do not really have a good negative control to assess health impacts. While there are animal and in vitro studies, reproducible harmful effects are to my knowledge mostly on the high but are also difficult to distinguish from, e.g. general inflammatory responses (e.g. induced by diet). I have not doubt that less exposure is better (as always) but not certain how high I would rank it in terms of stuff we are exposed to every day. I would put home air quality higher, for example.

No one mentioned fibrin generation. The secondary comes from the action of hirudin on thrombin then hirudin interaction via PARs and then platelet activation. This is mostly a push for you to stop just making a claim an throw up links that in no way support your claim. Again, your source contradicts your logic and yet you keep sidestepping that. There is no way to figure out why you make those claims and/or use these resources, which is just incredibly lazy and it really doesn't matter if it was AI or not. You are effectively making the same mistakes as a the AI summary from google is making. And if that is a summary of your thoughts why would you add explanation to it that are neither claimed in this thread nor are the relevant to the aspect under discussion. This whole text just shows that there is no understanding and no desire to understand the key issues (as minor as they are). The way it is written just throws together factoids and related elements, even if many of them are simply irrelevant (just as the mentioning fibrin, though we never discussed it, just happens to be the activity in the coagulation cascade but is not relevant to the discussion of potential anti-platelet function which happens via thrombin. And whoever wrote the text clearly lacks any awareness as they continue happily to discuss just that. As such it is clear that there is no meaningful discussion to be had and I might just yell at google.

What statement? Whether I read the papers? I mentioned what is in there and how it does not show your claim. I will again note that despite them being your sources you have not actually showed how it supports or your argument. I remind you that you made the claim. I have mentioned that hirudin works on thrombin and acts on an element of the anti-coagulation cascade and is therefore classified as an anti-coagulant. I cannot show you papers that it does not interact with thrombocytes, because well, they don't. I mentioned before that all anti-platelet activities I am aware of are because of thrombin interactions. And this is because of thrombin is also an platelet activator via PARs, which then activate the process. As you now acknowledged any anti-platelet activity are indirect and hence, they are generally not categorized an anti-platelet agent as you claimed originally. And again, if you had read your first paper, you should have asked yourself why did the add an anti-platelet moiety to a molecule that supposedly has already such activities? You may also want to read a chapter on antiplatelets: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537062/ Then look at the passage about glycoprotein inhibitors, which work on GPIIb-IIIa receptors. Then actually open up your first link (or at least the abstract) and see if you notice something. I will note that the classification of anti-coagulant and antiplatelet drugs is a bit less straightforward as they were not based on a full understanding of the molecular mechanisms and targets.

Since you still refuse to engage with your own sources (again), I will help you along the way. Here the authors say that they have the anti-coaguluation agent hirudin and they wan to add anti-platelet function to it by adding the RGD-motif, which was found to have anti-platelet functions. so kindly explain why the authors felt the need to create a fusion product to add a function, if it was already there to begin with. I remind you, this is a paper you cited to support your point, and you have not shown that it does and ask others to do the reading for you is just lazy. I will also offer another piece of information: anti-coagulations are generally substances that interfere in the primary clotting cascade. Anti-platelet are substances that primarily interfere with platelet adhesion and interactions. There are overlaps in the blood clot formation, but as you made the distinction between these two, you should be also aware of the differences. Now kindly go through your references and simply quote the parts that makes you believe that hirudin is acting on these two processes. And again, note that the direct interference into the respective processes is what distinguishes these classes of compounds. I will also note that your second link refers to your first one and the third one is again a synthetic, as I mentioned. I will also add that if you happen to ask AI and force it tell you about the anti-platelet action of hirudin, it will confuse hybrid proteins with native one. I will suggest that you stop being lazy and either substantiate your points, which could lead to discussions and clarification (and thereby someone could learn something. In fact, I would be curious to see if there was actually a publication showing direct anti-platelet activities (i.e. some direct interactions with thrombocytes), yet afaik all such activities are the result of thrombin inhibition as primary function (and hence the classification as anti-coagulant). Alternative, if learning or providing is not your goal then perhaps refrain to post half-understood concepts as facts. Such an attitude is a big inhibitor to learning and understanding and rapidly derails discussions, as you can see here. Also IIRC that guy never even got a license. They are going to pull some random factoids out of their collective arses and then try to create facts by fiat. Public health is looking grim. I have been talking with colleagues and I kind of regret starting to work in this field. It is just getting more depressing by the minute, especially as the stupidity won't remain constrained in the US. In fact, there are already multiple ripples running through global health systems and the one thing we learned from COVID-19 is that we are not ready to deal with such massive challenges very well.

Have you read the paper? I am guessing not, as if you had you will realize it is about a derivative that adds anti-platelet functions to hirudin (essentially a hybrid moleculer. I am fairly even without reading that the others will also be synthetics. But feel free to read the paper and correct me (rather than just posting unread or misunderstood links). I am not sure if the person wouldn't just think that they slipped from coma directly into fever dreams of a dying mind.

Thanks a lot, that confused me as I saw glutamate and immediately thought that it should be all amino acids, given the "peptide" in the title. But while they looked oddly familiar the base structure (for an AA) was off.

I wanted to say that I loved that, but hold on, those ain't amino acids are, they?

I don't think so. If memory serves, hirudin is a thrombin inhibitor and thereby acts as an anticoagulant (but not as an anti-platelet). D'oh. We need qualified persons everywhere. But as the Trump administration wants to destroy public goods, it makes sense to seek out the most unqualified and mission hostile person for the job. That way they can claim that the departments don't work and dismantle them and/or use them as exchemist described. That has been the modus operandi for since he got into power. It is more surprising at this point if anyone is surprised by it (other than those waking from a 20-year coma or so. They would be justifiably surprised)..

Based on those hypotheses, potentially. They are a "natural" treatment, after all. There is already a big push to fund research on harms of vaccines, while cutting research to make them better and safer.

Yes, that is why everyone sane is panicking. It is the department overseeing critical public health agencies such as the CDC, FDA and NIH. The CDC is (or was) networked across the world and is a leader in critical global efforts like the polio eradication strategy. Losing them, will create massive blind spots which will be almost impossible to fill in the short to perhaps mid-term.

I'd argue that this type of discourse is what is getting us in this mess. Apropos, would you mind cutting down on these memes? IMO they create unnecessary visual noise and clutter while adding nothing. Some of them can be humorous, if used appropriately, but overuse just makes it harder to read threads. I also feel that their overuse (among other things) contribute to the loss of attention spans. This is not about invalidation. Prior to Pasteur and the validation of the germ theory there were competing hypothese, regarding the cause of diseases. Prevalent ones were the so-called miasma and the terrain theory. What RFK describes is a bit of a fusion of both which he calls miasma, but is actually closer to the terrain theory. Therein, folks believed that disease is essentially caused by an imbalance in things like "humours" and bad diet. So basically he has the knowledge and beliefs of a quack from the 19th century.

I have heard from a colleague that admin has advised them to basically keep their mouths shut. But that historically does not go well with faculty, as they see that as part of academic freedom. In most cases they do not have the authority to do so. That would make sense for a private organization (and could be true for private universities) but generally goes against how universities used to operate. That being said, academic freedom has been under fire for a long time now and this is a move towards further restrictions.

Also, it became significantly dumber.

I do not know him so cannot speak to his situation. However, if he is tenured, he should be fairly safe job-wise, considering he is at Harvard, I believe? While I cannot say specifics to this person, I can mention things I heard from colleagues, which is not really pretty. In short, research has ground to a halt with NIH announcements now recently have started, but with severe delays, other major funding agencies are still delayed, so folks are in a limbo in terms of how to continue. Harvard specifically has been cut off from funding, from what I have heard (there are ongoing lawsuits). But especially smaller institutions are struggling with figuring out how to pay graduate students and what to do with the research portfolio. Especially non-tenured faculty are vulnerable as for many it is now virtually impossible to get the grants necessary to pass tenure review and there are ongoing discussion whether evaluation has to change. At the same time, there is also the overall budget cuts, which will fundamentally cut research and teaching in the US to a significant degree. Some institutions have advised faculty not to engage too much publicly, for fear of online backlash. As whole, the university administrations are caving in and/or are trying to keep their heads down and hope that this will eventually blow over. Fundamentally, we see an exercise in cowardice. In part, it is understandable, as they do not really have anything but moral leverage and we see how precarious elements of free speech and academic freedom really are. Whether anything of this relevant to the decision is unclear, but almost all researchers in the US will have to to rethink how things are going forward, with little support.

There are a lot of articles out there highlighting his various strange beliefs. But in short, he adheres to a kind of naturalist belief (he calls it miasma, but it actually has a different name that currently eludes me). In that system, the germ theory is not accurate, but instead the disease are mainly caused by things like toxic exposure and poor diet. It also assumes that certain things are "natural" and enhance health (such as raw milk) and others are synthetic (like vaccines) and are therefore inherently harmful. All of that while ignoring existing knowledge and data, of course. The only thing that does make sense is that there indeed an effect of things like diet and toxic exposures are very real. It is just ignoring all other aspects that is really, really problematic. The very short answer to your questions is it doesn't. A slightly longer one is that public health in the US and in the world is at severe risk.

I mean, that is just the cruelty cherry on top of the terror they are visiting up on brown folks. Not much of a shock factor there, I would say. Sure, some folks are complaining that those refugees are not properly vetted compared to all the others who are not granted asylum and waiting for years. But it certainly does not top deporting American toddlers with cancer, now does it? Edit: that was an actual question, I am not sure whether my sense of anything is tethered to reality anymore.

Sure, I get that. But what really is left? It is a bit like having the wrestlers kill each other for real, then flooding the ring and have the remaining folks eaten by sharks. And then oops I am going to be very corrupt, even more corrupt than yesterday. What shock factor could possibly be left? Has he eaten Melania?

That would be considered plagiarism, usually. There is generally no reason to cite someone citing something else verbatim. This is because you generally learn that during training, and the instructions usually assume as much. I.e. they are not supposed to be learning instructions. This does not make a lot a sense to me, unless you are suggesting that references are copied blocks of text. They are not. References are used to substantiate arguments you are making. For example you can state that "it has been well-recognized that antibiotic resistance is major threat to our ability to control infections [1-12]". But you shouldn't just copy out a sentence of one of those references and pass it on as part of your writing, even if referenced. Generic sentences such as these can read very similar across papers, but it should still be part of your writing (and can also highlight different references). In principle, yes but it depends on how you use a source. If you keep referencing it as a main part of your paper it would be weird. If you they a few important points that you make at different points in your paper it would be fine.

It is mostly to make sure that the reference is correct. If say A makes a mistake, and everyone cites A rather than B, then the mistake will spread.

Yes, you are right, B would be the one to reference, but more than that, you would have to dig B up and read whether what A cited (and you want to incorporate into your paper) is indeed what is in B. If it is, you cite B and not A. However, in natural science you almost never copy anything from a paper. Usually you summarize findings such as, B et al., found that deletion of gene X resulted in a phenotype characterized by X and Y [1]. Therefore, what you describe here should not happen. More importantly, in a paper you generally cite material either for background (i.e. in the introduction sections), methods, or discussion. The core element of your study are your results, which should be original. The only exception are reviews, where you write about other papers, but here you are supposed to do a synthesis. Copy pasting is not acceptable there, either. Rejection rates are not particularly high, except in top journals. But even in other journals at minimum you have to demonstrate original work, which is a fairly low bar. Though for sure, it is usually not possible (or shouldn't be) to randomly submit papers if you are not a researcher in the given field.

The zone is already flooded, isn't it? At this point it the water is up to everyone's noses and how is adding more being even more distracting? Exactly, if there is not access to it, it doesn't really matter that it is not formally suspended. It was the same thing regarding abortion, until they finally decided to come out and ban it outright. Not only dragging feet, but a) shuffle them around in various states so that they lawyers cannot find them and then whisk them away before it can be litigated. Once in El Salvador (or wherever) they claim that there is no legal remedy anymore. It is functionally the same as to vanish folks into a gestapo prison.

The one issue I have with this hypothesis, is that everything is on fire. The constitution is in crisis, Nazis are running the government, corruption is now open, brownshirts, I mean ICE agents are abducting folks, habeas corpus is suspended, free speech is being dismantled, the economy is tanked and the list goes on. It is incredible to me that when folks are drowning, yet everything is on fire, and probably somehow also full of sharks, there is still potential for distractions.