CharonY

That is a good question, and might depend on jurisdiction. In Europe Monsanto's GM maize was first approved but was then banned in Germany later on, in part (IIRC) because of the possibility that it could spread. In believe in the EU or maybe UK there were lawsuits back in the 2000s, regarding unauthorized release of GM crops (but I think it involved Bayer). The high level lawsuits that I remember that Monsanto won was (again, IIRC) based on the fact that the farmer deliberately harvested and replanted seeds, after discovering resistant plants on his field, which was then deemed patent infringement. But perhaps a more important reason could be that Monsanto is not a grower and it is more likely that the invading crops would originate from another farm. So if there was a lawsuit, it would more likely against that farm rather than Monsanto. Another issue is that unless there is something that visually makes the GM crop stand out, many farmers simply wouldn't know as they generally do not test them.

I think it is now more important than ever to wait for official verification. Even without AI, internet rumors had a way to spread misinformation and it is only getting worse.

Moderator NoteThere is so much misinformation including claims of violating basic thermodynamics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fuel_cell). Fundamentally, this post appears an attempt to spread disinformation, especially with regard to vaccinations, thus endangering public health. Don't bring this up again.

And even that is problematic and at best inconsistent. For example, Type I is characterized by accessibility, i.e. starch to which enzymes cannot get to. Type II otoh is based on origin (e.g. raw starch from plant species), forming resistant granules. Type III are generally spontaneously generated precipitated starches with some some-crystalline structres and then IV are or modified starches. This classification might make sense in food sciences, but in a microbial context it is pretty much meaningless. Within each of these groups you have different chemical compositions, which will be utilized and processed differently by bacteria, for example.

I don't think you are wrong (especially regarding Monsanto, the legal trap is pretty famous and has made its way into textbooks), but links to cancer are notoriously difficult to establish. Fundamentally, pretty much all herbicides are toxic, but those with acute toxicity are just easier to spot. For residential use there is a discussion to be had what would be wise to use close to where you live. However, a bigger issue is the often massive exposure in agricultural use. The controversy here (and my reading might be a bit outdated) is mostly whether Roundup has a higher risk than other herbicides, and there the evidence is somewhat sketchy. There is also a (IMO) much bigger issue is that as a whole there are massive testing gaps in toxicity testing. For example, often only the active ingredient are tested and regulated, yet the overall health impact can vary massively depending on what else is in the formulation.

I think that this is a good point and also a reminder that most food studies are association studies with very limited understanding of underlying mechanisms. There are also trials, which are better controlled but are generally also only limited to measurement of clinical endpoints, without mechanistic insights. This issue also extends to our understanding of the role of the gut microbiota in human health. As such, these types of studies are frequently are associated with limited reproducibility, which, I assume, will amplify if we look at more diverse populations. Moreover, extrapolation of such data will more likely than not result in predictions that do not turn out to be true.

I am not sure whether that alone would be infringement. It could frame ordinary requests as infringement of freedom. OTOH, I can see how folks might think about such requests in terms of infringement (in either direction) and could be insufferably self-righteous about it. I think infringement really starts once there are (by)laws that would penalize certain actions or lack thereof. I.e. closer to what is described in the first couple of posts in this thread. I think in terms of liability there it is a reasonable assumption that if something is indeed harmful, its use would be restricted for private to some degree (there is also a whole issue regarding the evidence for glyphosates). .

Also, there are different compositions of RS. The lit seems a bit of a mess to me and less resolved compared to even the complex situation you find in environmental communities.

So, fundamentally yes, but things are (as usual) quite a bit more complicated. There are different types of resistant starches that are associated with different shifts in the microbiota, as well as SCFA being produced. I will also note that while there are plenty of associations between SCFA and gut health, they are predominantly derived from animal models and the mechanistic understanding is still lacking. I.e. there is good reason to believe that this might yield health benefits, we have only limited human data and we don't really understand how it might happen.

The media remind me as some addict chasing the next high- except that influences have flooded the landscape with synthetics that keep everyone so oversaturated and sedated, folks wouldn't react to anything, anymore.

I think they should have been- I have seen that in the news and certainly it was in the pile of papers for me to read. There were at least two papers of relevance. One earlier published in Science with Worobey and Anderson as corresponding authors back in 2022 and a later one which had a different methodology and from what I remember had a stronger evidence base published in Cell (where they tried to reconstruct and associate genotypes from genetic fragments). I suspect that by 2024 most SARS-CoV-2 related news were not elevated that much anymore, unless you are paying active/professional attention (apropos fragmented information systems..).

Maybe a comment here, the genome itself would provided only limited information on the source. It is more important to see where they were found. Near-perfect evidence would be the detection of the precise genotype in a sample recovered from an animal during or prior the outbreak, for example. The most direct evidence was a re-analysis of Huanan market samples and swabs (published last year). These analyses strengthened the argument of a wet-market zoonotic spillover. I find the evidence compelling and would put that as the most likely scenario, however the level of evidence is insufficient to entirely rule out other scenarios. Elevating that to the level of "truth" as outlined in OP is highly problematic. In fact, elevating these conclusions to "truths" are IMO one of the reason why trust in public health and science is declining. As researchers, we need to be clear about levels of uncertainty and understand the limits of our conclusion and communicate with nuance. I think the old adage of keeping things simple is not working in the modern, fragmented information (and disinformation) system.

Also the immune response goes down with age, without any external input. I think some posters should familiarize themselves with the concept of senescence. The only way to avoid it is to die young.

It is weird to frame it as an admittance, as the discussion is about strong linkage of IQ to race, and it was never about whether there is any genetic basis. For a while the discussion has been heavily moving goalposts around, as the issue of building racial groups has not been addressed, nor whether the measures between groups are useful. Except of course, lifestyles like the San people have likely been part of our evolutionary history, whereas the ability to strive just by performing well in abstract tests is a new dev development. The former is more likely to leave signatures in our genome, rather than the recent events. But sure, if we declare everything that does not fit our narrative as beside the point, then the argument is iron clad. But it is also not worthy of discussion.

In a way yes, but I will acknowledge that in the past that has been basically seen as a fact. The book/paper from Rushton and other had been highly influential in the 90s, and I recall some lectures that had those ideas baked in. As a biologist I was quit a fair bit dismayed and it was a minor reason why I switched from my initial interests towards genetics and related subjects.