CharonY

You have to think more about quantity than the type of foodstuff. Sugar is a bit issue, not necessarily because of it its effect alone. It is more problematic as it is ubiquitous, especially in processed food and because we like it and therefore overeat. In moderation, most things are not that bad (though alcohol seems one of the exceptions). I.e. if you eat ice cream every now and then, there is very unlikely to be any measurable negative effects. Do it every day, it might be.

I trust you have not dropped like a fly yet? Nor for that matter your likely equally vaccinated colleagues?

I think AI development is unfortunately going to address that.

We should learn to agree on the same reality again (not interpretation, merely a set of facts).

If unlikely is the same as impossible, we would neither have viruses nor organisms to carry them on Earth. I am also skeptical that there are only three labs doing gain-of-function type of research claim. Gain-of-function programs have been under scrutiny, but there are quite a few virology labs do "regular" functional research. There is a point where these studies could lead to a gain of function (intentionally or not) but where this point is has been under discussion at least since 2011. These genetic studies are more common, but typically still require BSL3 conditions of which there are at least over a hundred in China (and over a thousand in the US). But again, the overall logic of the argument is faulty to begin with.

As others mentioned, the conclusions are not logical. For example the incredulity that SARS-CoV-2 originated at one and not many wet markets rather makes sense. Jumping species is a fairly rare event so you would not expect it to happen frequently. If it did, tracing the origin would be rather impossible. To take an earlier pandemic as example, the 2009 H1N1 pandemic ("swine flu) were associated with a reassortment of viruses circulating in Eurasian and North American pigs. Genetic tracing indicates that the pandemic hat its origin in North America in swine herds. Pigs are bred everywhere, but obviously the pandemic started most likely with this event. There are also more epidemiological work on the Wuhan market that has been the epicenter of the largest (known) outbreak. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abp8337 But what is perhaps more important is that OP still seems to think that genetic re-assortment, and associated development of new diseases requires some artificial intervention. In reality this is not so. There are many points of likely zoonotic spillover, which also includes our agricultural practices. There is a reason why we frequently hear of culls of thousands or even millions of livestock due to disease outbreaks. Due to immunization, treatment options and generally good access to healthcare, many countries are under the illusion that new diseases will only occur in exotic locations or, simply put, elsewhere. This, obviously a misconception. While we often have been lucky that many viruses e.g. in livestock do not simply jump to humans, the 2009 pandemic showed us that it does in fact happen. What we have is really a lottery and it can happen everywhere. Even if every single wet market is banned, there will be other sources. And since we are encroaching on natural habitats everywhere, we might increase the likelihood of genetic re-assortment of various as well as bacterial pathogens. While there are some legitimate concerns regarding pathogens escaping labs, I feel that the real issue why folks are so hung up on it, it because it seems like a much easier problem to address as the real one that were facing. These include zoonotic diseases, accelerated by habitat loss, but also the rise of antimicrobial resistances. Often times, the big challenges (not unlike global warming) just seem too big to tackle and instead we focus on the small stuff to make us feel that we are in charge. Then we get several warning shots (e.g. SARS, MERS, swine flu, etc) and even if something big happens that forces us to face it (COVID-19) we almost immediately go back into denial. I fear that the next pandemic will come as an utter surprise as all the ones before it.

I was at -6 when I was 10 or 12. And then it got worse. I was told Lasik would be too risky, but that was long ago.

That is the actual prescription. Typically it has three parts, sphere/cylinder and axis. -1.75 is not too bad in terms of nearsightedness. X refers to axis, but since there are no values noted it suggests that there is no astigmatism.

Only when we talk about ATP generation via the ATP synthase. There are other ATP generating pathways, such as glycolysis.

For medical claims it is often worthwhile to hunt down the original articles rather than relying on websites. Going back from your latest link, there are some primary controlled trial papers showing the use of lavender oil preparations (silexan) and its efficacy to treat mostly weak anxiety disorder types. Overall, these findings seem to hold up somewhat for oral studies, for the rest while overall positive, the results are a bit mixed. See https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phymed.2019.153099 for a meta-analysis. Note that in medical research, typically controlled trials are the gold standard to establish whether something is of medical value, whereas other forms of research could highlight plausible types of action but quite often these effects turn out to be hard to reproduce in large study cohorts. Nonetheless potential effects can be used as justification to start these large trials, which are usually very expensive. For linalool the situation is more problematic as while there is some evidence for a range of effects, I have not seen trials in a quick search. Most papers provide somewhat limited evidence of anti-inflammatory or potential mood-stabilizing effects (much of it in rats or mice models, rather than humans). So at this point it seems to me that most of the effects are suggested and/or preliminary. Interesting, but not for certain in the medical sense yet.

As an addition, unless you are still developing, nutrition is an ongoing process and issues arise because you deplete your reserves (which could happen during fasting) but deficiency (i.e. lack of something) obviously goes away once the nutrients are coming in again. I.e. anemia is not a live-long condition. There is the that certain nutrients that are not easily absorbed (e.g. B12) can take a long time to replenish once they drop below a certain threshold. In these cases supplements and injection might be needed in addition to a balanced diet. Edit: I should also add that there are a range of conditions that could cause in anemia despite a balanced diet.

We already got a non-magical mechanism for that . And this is why a lot of folks are overweight in a society where food is readily available.

No. It only demonstrates a lack of understanding of what oxidative phosphorylation refers to. One could explore this specifically by asking what the role of the respiratory chain in the presence of the suggested magic devices is.

Why would there a need for a goal for existence in the first place?

That would not work. Stroke is not a cellular condition, but a vascular disease (though often associated with neurological manifestations, which would make things even more complicate. So at the minimum you would need a vascular model or, more likely, an animal model. Also, stroke is not induced by a specific stressor, but basically is induced by damages/blockages in the vascular system and could be e.g. caused by thromboses or similar events. Also, agar plates are generally used for microbial studies and you cannot grow eukaryotic cells on them.

It also depends on what is considered to be "safe". In toxicological studies a safe level is often defined as a concentration that is at the NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effect Level), meaning that the experimentally there is no association with increased adverse effects due to exposure at the given level. However, increasingly studies suggest that there is likely no safe level for alcohol. I.e. any exposure is associated with an increase (if ever so slightly) with adverse effects. There is still a lot of discussion due to the complexity of the issue and the fact that we cannot really easily do long-term exposure studies in humans but recommendations are shifting, because of some of those findings.

Yupp. It was eye opening when I heard a students saying that of of course they would conceal carry to bars as things can get dangerous when alcohol is involved. Also I feel that many Americans are not that great when it comes to irony (coming from a country where sarcasm is the norm).

I did not take it as such, I should also add that in the past in Germany most men were familiar with guns due to obligatory military service. It is more about the realm (where do guns belong) rathe than familiarity around guns. I think others have expressed it better already, but what I tried to get at is the overall attitude that a gun is needed just in case. Americans I talked to seem to equate calling the police to deal with things like a sign of weakness but also impracticality (which I get in rural regions- the distances are vastly different compared to much of Europe). But there is also a disconnect in terms of how folks think how they need to deal with crime. In most countries folks seem to overestimate criminality but the US is more likely to think that a shootout would be a viable option to address it. I.e. it is not only guns themselves (though they play a big part) but also the way folks think about threat (individualized vs communal actions, for example) and many other things. Americans seem to view Europeans as too trusting regarding their government, but also their community (hence the children comment) and this comes over as fearful in societies were you have (or had) a higher level of trust.

That is not it, actually. There guns in much of Europe, sometimes a lot of them. We have yearly marches from the shooting clubs, for example (yey guns and alcohol). But the difference is that it has a very specific niches: hunting and sports. Outside of expected events any gun would be seen as an extreme oddity and even in high-crime areas folks would not think much about arming themselves. I know folks who eventually got a gas pistol around the time in the 90s when neo-nazis were patrolling the neighborhood, but got rid of it pretty quickly. As a whole, even in rather sketchy areas at least locals have a higher sense of security and safety. And if things go downhill most would think about the need to call the police rather than thinking about arming themselves. American on the other hand think it is more rational to deal with things proactively just in case, as you mentioned and rationalize things very differently. I think back to my chainsaw comment, it is not that there are no trees, but elsewhere folks do not think frequently about the need to chop them down quickly.

I get that, but again, for a non-American this thought process is bewildering. To many of us it is more like having a chainsaw around just in case. While going out to get sandwiches. This is not meant as an insult, but just an attempt to highlight how different these things appear to many of us.

The fear part is also what stuck in my mind. When I lived there, I was astonished how frequently and casually folks (including academics) were certain that they need weapons do defend themselves. While certain (typically anti-immigrant) sentiments are quite common also in Europe in elsewhere, straight up violence would (in the past) generally only promoted in safe spaces and not expressed to random strangers. Another thing that was related to that is the fear of their children being harmed. Apparently not watching your kids every minute of the day was considered a offense and could get cops involved. Meanwhile, elsewhere kids where shooed out of the house during the day and you would have dinner with whoever managed to get back in time (well not exactly like that, but you get the idea). The assumption is that violence and murder is at every corner and you need to be prepared to answer with like any second. Police training also reflects that and in my mind this is very much the hallmark of a frightened society.

You mean as the same PIT for everyone? That would be equal, but not equitable. A person with low income would have to use a higher percentage of their income on essentials (housing, food, etc.) so will end up with with less disposable income as part of their overall salary than a person with a higher income and the same tax rate. An equitable approach would tax folks with higher income more (but a would also need to close loopholes for them to get around those). One common issue is that many super rich actually do not have an income per se, but most of it is based on assets/wealth. So to pay for things they borrow against their wealth and while they spend a lot, they do not need to pay income tax (or barely any at all). Which is why wealth taxes are under discussion, but apparently difficult to implement.

And also note that many of the other contaminants (including PFAS and other organohalogens) have shown to accumulate in wildlife up and including the arctic. Various endocrine disruptors are part of our "regular" food chain, personal care products etc. But again, identifying smoking gungs are tricky here. There are likely some long-term effects, but they will be mixed up with all other aspects (lifestyle, general health status, other environmental exposures, age, risk factors etc.) that it is very, very difficult to assess risk in a detailed level.

Not really. We are still in the collecting data phase. There is the worry that bioaccumulation make chronic effects more likely, but so far there is no smoking gun publication (e.g. showing direct effects) nor is the body of evidence (IMO) strong enough to know about likely detrimental effects. Most evidence that I am aware of are basically showing potential associations or focus on components with somewhat better known detrimental effects (e.g. BPA). I.e. both rely on some level of extrapolation in terms of mechanisms or life-time exposure. That is not to say that there is no effect, but on the other hand there are many other exposures including "forever-chemicals" such as organohalogens, where potential toxicity is better understood. Also other exposures (e.g. air pollution) which are common but are known to be way more harmful. Microplastics in my mind is a bit of a "hip" topic, but compared to what we already routinely put into our bodies it is not really the most significant one (for now).

Harboring bacteria is not the issue. It is more of an issue if they can multiply in there. And unless you are in the habit of never washing your cookware (i.e. having plenty of food residue and moisture around) it won't be an issue. Warm water and soap is usually sufficient.