CharonY

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

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.

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.

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).

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 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.

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...?

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.