CharonY

Huh, the URL should have been a hint to me, shouldn't it? Sorry I have been grading and I swear my own ability to read degrades with each student essay I am reading. History FactsWere People in Medieval Times Always Drunk?It’s often said that people during the Middle Ages, a period that lasted from roughly the end of the fifth century through the 15th century, drank beer instead of water because the drinking water at t

This is a rather common myth (I have seen in decades back in Scientific American). Here is an article about it https://historyfacts.com/famous-figures/article/benjamin-franklin-facts/

While I think the distinction might be important, it is also a fair bit more complicated. Both concepts are heavily debated in lit. Instinct, for example, has become a catch-all term in animal behaviour for many aspects that are likely entirely distinct mechanisms. Much of how we understand instinct is based on works of folks like Konrad Lorenz, which were great at its time and immensely influential. However, modern behavioural sciences, especially in conjunction with advances in the area of neurobiology, but also a much more individualized approach to behavioural observation. For example, for a time behaviour like head-scratching in bird was a prime example of instinctual behaviour (IIRC, it was about the crossing of a hindleg over the wing). In early papers parallels were drawn between how birds and other vertebrates do it, suggesting an evolutionary root how this "clumsy" behaviour is established and universal. However, in the 80s there were reports that this behaviour is much less universal, and especially younger birds will use a different method (leg under wing) and that depending on how they perch and where they center of gravity is, they will switch. So starting in 80s there was already some rumbling that things that appeared to be universal behaviour, and thus instinctual might actually be more learned and adapted to situations than originally thought. I have not been doing much research in that particular area, except occasionally grabbing some papers to have a good time, but it seems to me that though has gained massive momentum around the 2010s where behavioral scientist started to work much more individualized with animals, instead of the traditional approach (which I also learned as student) to create broad categories over large populations to make statistical analyses easier. The result was in many animals folks started to find evidence of higher reasoning (though there is bias regarding species being used, such as crows) and that the idea of an instinct has become much more nuanced. And because it is hard to nail down, it is something that (at least the papers I read) is not used anymore, at least in the formerly used way. Rather, it is being framed as a disposition towards certain behaviours, modified by learning (i.e. experience). Now, this is not to say that there are no hardwired-reflexive pathways, but where once animal behavior has been described as repetitive and instinctual, I think the research is changing its thinking about that. This is an analogous development to how we increasingly see the nature vs nurture debate or the role of genetics in complex physiological outcomes. Also as a side, it is a bit interesting to me that in the evolutionary psych area (which itself has issues) the older concepts of instinct seem to still be more prevalent than in behavioral sciences.

I think the title might be the wrong way around. What I mean is that first animals at some point developed the ability to: Which I interpret as the ability to intuitively make assumptions about the world around us. This is something we share with (I think) most animals to some degree. I think the ability for higher level reasoning came later, and the "motivated reasoning" is applying higher order reasoning skills to justify intuition. Obviously for complicated situations this approach is faulty as everyone recognizes, but doing more thorough analyzes is harder and often requires additional skills that many may be lacking. So the reasoning then defaults to the intuitive approach.

Not only that. When folks talk about honeybees, they often talk about domesticated species with a narrow genetic diversity. While there are efforts to protect them, often wild honeybee population decline. At least in part it seems that domestic honeybees exert competitive pressure on wild populations, and this could make things worse for them. Or at least not better. Edit: made the comment pre-merge. I am wondering about that. Wouldn't it only work if honeybee and wild bee foraging areas don't overlap? And considering that honeybees are also used widely as pollinators in Ag, wouldn't a strengthen honeybee population increase, rather than decrease pressure on remaining wild populations?

Of course. The only caveat is when the studies are poor, fraudulent and/or unethical (Wakefield comes to mind) or if they are sponsored by groups with vested interest (e.g., Philip Morris, 3M etc.). However, over time (usually science's self-correction feature kicks in, though it can be a slow process.

I have been working on PFAS in the past, and the effects subtle (i.e. it is not one of the easier to discern acutely toxic chemicals). But an emerging theme is disruption of lipid metabolism, that especially in children could potentially lead to long-term effects. And there has been a long history of many potential exposures that are ongoing and where industries are rather unwilling to react to. Some of the deadliest are air pollution, which in all likelihood are most associated with premature deaths of all exposures. The issues range from large-scale pollution (e.g. coal plants) to more subtle in-home pollution (e.g. cooking with poor ventilation, lead paint etc.). The solution to that is not trying to heal folks somehow magically. The solution is to reduce exposure. Theoretically, agencies like the EPA would try to achieve that. But as we can see, even folks who go to the deep end of exposure related things (mostly because they are too lazy to read up on facts) are not really that much into regulating air and water and instead focus on stupid flashpoints without evidence (e.g. tylenol). I.e. the issue is less a medical one, but one of industrial (and other) regulation.

There are in fact many more than six species that don't have the equivalent of a heart. I do not quite understand the selection in the article, nor why the first image is of a cuttlefish, which, IIRC has actually three hearts (one for central circulation and two for each gill). Phylogenetically, among the main lineages of animals (animalia) IIRC only the bilateria (and not all of them, flatworms are mentioned in the article, for example) have a heart. Though to be fair, bilateria is the phylum with the most known species. But considering that the first line in OP is already false I guess there is reason to continue down the road.

I am more wondering about other infections (e.g. influenza, RSV etc.,) going on in that area.

Well, at least someone is happy: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/opinion/russia-putin-iran-war.html

The issue with these arguments is that there can be a grain of truth somewhere, but folks just than wildly extrapolate from there without stopping to gather evidence or think a bit about it. The fundamental criticism that medicine often is not sufficiently holistic is actually somewhat valid. But the reason is not some silly conspiracy, but rather that it is immensely complicated and much, if not most of the underlying biological determinants of health are simply not well understood. Just take a look at the vast literature regarding nutrition- while over decades some knowledge has crystallized, a lot is still uncertain, or does only apply to some folks or is hard to replicate. Add to that socio-economic determinants of health it is something that simply put no medical doctor or even groups of MDs can realistically cover. Even in a research context, if going sufficiently deep, each person could conceivably be a research project on their own, owing to individual genetic make-up as well (and perhaps more importantly) developmental history. Things encountered in childhood or even prenatal could have significant impact on health risks further down the line. But figuring those out is immensely complicated and it is unknown how much we can can realistically generalize. When postgenomics techniques were introduced, many of us had the notion that personalized medicine was on the horizon. However, within a few years the concept mostly got rebranded towards precision medicine, that tries to move away from the personalized aspect. I suspect with AI it will survive a while longer. However, at the given state I personally believe that it will still crash headlong into the issue of limited biological understanding. With AI we will just get to the point a bit faster. What most medical systems are is therefore the result of whatever best practices we can derive, at a given cost we are willing to pay, which is compatible with the system (e.g. single-payer, public funded, mixed or private) and also is likely to be used by the population. For example, high sugar food is unhealthy. I don't think that the literature is very ambigous about that. However, addressing that goes beyond the office of an MD. But there are also studies that have shown that in low-income communities, providing money is surprisingly effective in addressing health issues. Again, a practice that is not usually associated with medical treatment, yet rather effectively improved health measures. Again, this is all to say that health (and associated biology) is vastly more complicated than those youtubers and other folks make it out to be and folks should rather spend time learning the basics than wildly speculate about things they know little about. I understand that this is far less attractive and in today's attention economy won't get you clicks. But it is the only way to actually learn something.

This is part of a general conspiracy theory that assumes that there are financial imperatives to keep folks unhealthy. As in this case, there is never any evidence provided, which makes discussions rather meaningless. However, I will add one piece information that hopefully will get you thinking more broadly. In countries with single-payer systems, doctors don't make money by attracting more patients. I.e. a sicker population just means a higher workload for higher pay. But in those systems, the generally practice is often not that different to for-profit systems like the US. What do you make of that?

Yes, or more precisely, not necessarily an issue with longitudinal studies, but with almost all association studies. It is virtually impossible to control for all variables and many factors are not independent. Generally speaking, creating the "right" cohort is incredibly difficult and it is rare that you can find for example two identical groups of people where the only difference is the variable under investigation. Typically, you need a controlled study in order to really figure it out. But that is typically not feasible for longitudinal study, as folks won't e.g. stay on a specific diet for decades. Sometimes, you have "natural" experiments, in which something happens that creates good control and test groups. For example, there might be daycare centers having similar composition of kids but offering different diets. Or you can look at before and after of food labeling or banning of certain foods or rapid changes in dietary habits. For that reason, quite a few of the newer papers are looking at China, where there has been a massive change in diet. But going back to obesity, both factors, physical activity and diet. I think activity was slightly more controversial as it is sometimes difficult to establish the cost of additional expenditure over the basal metabolism, but I think the lit has coalesced around somewhat consistent finding that sedentary lifestyles would indeed require shaving off a few hundred calories to counteract weight gain in children. But the very basics are pretty straightforward, and ultimately it is the excess consumption of calories. Though to reverse obesity, diet is the main part that can lead to weight loss (though exercise is helpful in doing it in a healthy way).

Also from the article: However, I would agree that wild assumptions without even having the basics right are by definition speculative and as a method not scientific. For a proper scientific inquiry you have to start and end with accurate data and provide evidence for any assertions made. This takes time and effort, something that only few are willing to invest (including RFK Jr. and his foundation). But one of the big issues associated with a range of chronic diseases is obesity. And the reason for that is not precisely a mystery (though somewhat complex).

Also, some folks (as I think this statistic refers to) are mostly immune to symptomatic outbreaks, and are passive carriers but can transmit to vulnerable persons (think Mary Mallon, or Typhoid Mary). Aside from factors mentioned earlier which could promote colonization and invasion, an important factor in terms of symptoms and severity is how the immune system reacts to them. Sepsis can be facilitated by triggering pro-inflammatory cascades via lipopolysaccharides of the bacterium (Neisseria mengitidis) for example. I.e. much of the damages are in fact caused by the immune response (including subsequent endothelial damages, necrosis etc. once it reaches the bloodstream). I haven't followed the recent UK outbreak, but I don't really see clear information whether there is something special about this one, or just a confluence of factors that are causing this spike. Some have mentioned that potentially infected folks were sharing vapes, which not only exchanges infectious saliva, but also damages mucosal surfaces and might promote spread. Or there could be co-infections, with respiratory diseases which are still around. Some have speculated regarding a difference in virulence, but there is no evidence for that yet, either.