Slashdot Mirror

Again - who in the US or Canada or any developed country, that's eating enough calories, is suffering from a protein or amino acid deficiency? You're citing a non-existent problem. You may as well claim that vegans are also more likely to be abducted by aliens.

Phytic acid is actually a good thing for us, but if you did your research you'd know that a small amount of cooking, or inclusion of foods with Vitamin C (like nearly any fruit or vegetable) counteracts much of the impact of it, and you're actually ahead of the game nutritionally. Not sure who's eating raw legumes and beans, but they deserve to get sick. (Sprouting also breaks down the phytic acid.)

"Corrected for that, a veg*an who exercises as little and drinks as much as the average individual gets diabetes more often."

Would love to see your source for that.. I suspect the opposite is true if you actually do some research. Like this: "We hypothesized that more exclusively vegetarian diets, e.g., vegan, lacto-ovo, or pesco-vegetarian, are associated with lower prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes compared with semi- or nonvegetarian diets." (And yes, adjustments were made for "for age, sex, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, television watching, sleep habits, alcohol use, and BMI".)

Insulin is over-produced because excess fat in the cells blocks them from absorbing it and the kidneys attempt to compensate. This is health 101. Yes, add sugar to a high-fat diet and you only make matters worse, but removing the fat is the first step that nutritionists take, along with increasing fiber intake (which lowers body fat, among other things) because of T2 diabetes' pathogenesis.

We have no specific biological adaptations to eating meat. Our teeth are those of herbivores, and our digestive system is that of a frugivore. Based on dental calculus analysis and corprolite data, our ancestors ate shit-loads of plants.

Nicotine has been shown to have a similar effect on mammals.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I know its not the same, but they are part of the same family of chemicals, this should really have been investigated before they were approved for wider use.

If you're going to attempt to have more employees of category X in your company than exist naturally in the available labor pool, then you're going to have to lower hiring standards. The only ways you don't is if you assume people in category X are more skilled on average or if you pay higher wages to people in category X so you can maintain the same level of quality but draw from the best individuals among category X. I suspect that the people who disagree with what the memo/manifesto had to say are going to argue that in favor of the first being true as it directly contradicts the notion that biology doesn't play a role, and probably would reject the second as well because it's going to result in a perception of non-equal pay based on lack of merit, unless all of the category X people are more skilled than everyone else who's not in category X.

I just don't see any other way to accomplish this without lowering the bar. Say you ran a company and only wanted to hire people who are left handed (about 10% of the population, but as an interesting aside it is estimated that men are more likely to be left-handed than women for whatever reason) and that for the job you are hiring people, dominant hand plays no role in actual performance (so we're not hiring for a baseball team). How could you not reduce hiring standards if you're actively ignoring some 90% (this assumes left and right-handed people are equally likely to apply for the job) of the labor pool for artificial reasons?

I think some people just want to jump on this argument or line of thinking because it goes against their ideas of increasing diversity, but if you stop and think about it, it also supports diversity outcomes. If you were only hiring right-handed people it also means that your company is ignoring qualified individuals in the labor pool for the same reason. Sure in this particular case, it's a smaller part of the pool so you might not have to lower standards as much, but anyone who is discriminating against any minority group is actively hurting themselves by ignoring skilled workers. Interestingly, the same is true for other aspects of the memo. If women are more likely to have some attribute (whether physical or personality) than men and having a diversity across that attribute is valuable or improves outcomes in some way, then not hiring women makes it more difficult to have employees with that attribute.

But back to the central point, please let me know if there's some obvious approach by which you can discriminate in favor of some category of employees in excess of their representation in the labor pool without lowering standards or paying a higher wage, because I can't think of one. If you really want to see more people of category X in some job you'll need to address the number of people in the labor pool (which is probably a tangled mess of all manner of underlying factors both biological and social and not always easily solved) otherwise attempting to hire people disproportionately is just a bad move, much like trying to put the roof up before erecting any of the walls or laying the foundation.

You slammed Debra Soh https://www.researchgate.net/p... because her Thesis was using fMRIs, among other observing tools. Then you claimed that you can prove a salmon has emotion the same way.

However, her thesis actually used a number of different observing tools, of which, fMRIs was only one. One of the others methods she used in her research was diffusion tensor imaging. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... I'm linking it since you seem to be completely unfamiliar with her thesis.

Obviously, using a dead salmon in order to prove that the salmon was emotional, via fMRIs doesn't prove anything.

However, she didn't just use fMRIs, only https://clairelehmann.net/2017...

But, when you are talking about fMRIs, you should at least accurately represent the state of the science.

"Whereas the kind of reverse inference described above is informal, in the sense that it is based on the researcherâ(TM)s knowledge of associations between activation and mental functions, a more recent approach provides the ability to formally test the ability to infer mental states from neuroimaging data. Known variously as multi-voxel pattern analysis (MVPA), multivariate decoding, or pattern-information analysis, this approach uses tools from the field of machine learning to create statistical machines that can accurately decode the mental state that is represented by a particular imaging dataset. In the last ten years, this approach has become very popular in the fMRI literature; for example, in the first 8 months of 2011 there have been more than 50 publications using these methods, versus 41 for the entire period before 2009.

A pioneering example of this approach was the study by Haxby et al. (2001), who showed that it was possible to accurately classify which of several classes of objects a subject was viewing, using a nearest-neighbor approach in which a test dataset was compared to training datasets obtained for each of the classes of interest. Whereas early work using MVPA focused largely on decoding of visual stimulus features, such as object identity (Haxby et al., 2001) or simple visual features (Haynes & Rees, 2005; Kamitani & Tong, 2005), it is now clear that more complex mental states can also be decoded from fMRI data. For example, several studies have shown that future intentions to perform particular tasks can be decoded with reasonable accuracy (Gilbert, 2011; Haynes et al., 2007). These studies show that it is possible to quantitatively estimate the degree to which a pattern of brain activation is predictive of the engagement of a specific mental process, and thus provides a formal means to implement reverse inference. They have also provided evidence that activation in some regions may be less diagnostic than is required (and often assumed) for effective reverse inference. For example, neither the âoefusiform face areaâ nor the âoeparahippocampal place areaâ is particularly diagnostic for the stimulus classes that activate them most strongly (faces or scenes respectively) (Hanson & Halchenko, 2008)."

Despite there, there are some limitations

"Despite the incredible power of these methods to decode mental states from neuroimaging data, some important limits remain. Foremost, decoding methods cannot overcome the fact that neuroimaging data are inherently correlational (cf. Poldrack, 2000), and thus that demonstration of significant decoding does not prove that a region is necessary for the mental function being decoded. Lesion studies and manipulations of brain function using methods such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) will remain essential for identifying which regions are necessary and which are epiphenomenal. Conversely, a region could be important for a function even if it is not diagnostic of that function

Wow, your mad debating skills continue to blow me away: "I don't have subscriptions to the actual journals, so I'm just going to say the studies are irrelevant based on their titles."

If you had the slightest shred of intellectual curiosity, you'd quickly discover that the full text is freely available for all but the first paper, and abstracts are free available for all of them. I'll even do one for you to get you started:

Omar Hasan, E. John Orav, and LeRoi Hicks, “Insurance Status and Hospital Care for Myocardial Infarction, Stroke, and Pneumonia,” Journal of Hospital Medicine, Vol. 5, No. 8 (2010), pp. 452–459.

Abstract available here.
Full-text PDF available here.

Those were the first two hits from Googling the title. Pretty amazing stuff.

Happy reading.

No, he didn't call them "neurotic" and "anxious". He said that "Women, on average, have more:". I.e. these things occur at higher rates in females than in males.

Why did you misrepresent what he wrote?

How does pointing out a statistic create a "hostile work environment towards women"?

BTW, it's not hard to find studies that agree with what he wrote.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

No, he didn't call them "neurotic" and "anxious". He said that "Women, on average, have more:". I.e. these things occur at higher rates in females than in males.

Why did you misrepresent what he wrote?

How does pointing out a statistic create a "hostile work environment towards women"?

BTW, it's not hard to find studies that agree with what he wrote.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

An interesting question for discussion might be whether we agree or disagree with what the fired employee said. That is, do you think women are "neurotic" and show "a lower stress tolerance" (and that their careers suffer because women are "agreeable" rather than "assertive")

There's nothing to discuss. It's scientifically accepted fact.

Abstract

In college and adult samples, women score higher then men on the Five Factor Model (FFM) personality traits of Neuroticism and Agreeableness. The present study assessed the extent to which these gender differences held in a sample of 486 older adults, ranging in age from 65-98 (M = 75, SD = 6.5)...

I'm sorry if that shatters your worldview, but in this case reality has a distinctly anti-liberal bias.

WTF are you blathering on about? Your quoting a study about woman over 65. How is that population, in any way, representative of existing or potential female engineers at Google?

An interesting question for discussion might be whether we agree or disagree with what the fired employee said. That is, do you think women are "neurotic" and show "a lower stress tolerance" (and that their careers suffer because women are "agreeable" rather than "assertive")

There's nothing to discuss. It's scientifically accepted fact.

Abstract

In college and adult samples, women score higher then men on the Five Factor Model (FFM) personality traits of Neuroticism and Agreeableness. The present study assessed the extent to which these gender differences held in a sample of 486 older adults, ranging in age from 65-98 (M = 75, SD = 6.5)...

I'm sorry if that shatters your worldview, but in this case reality has a distinctly anti-liberal bias.

WTF are you blathering on about? Your quoting a study about woman over 65. How is that population, in any way, representative of existing or potential female engineers at Google?

Is that because you have Alzheimer's or because you've been smoking the reefer to prevent it? I mean I guess this could be good news for you on that count, but it would also mean you'd have to give up getting high. At least unless you develop any of the other conditions that allow for a medical card. I personally recommend general anxiety (about your glaucoma) that's giving you migraines.

He actually didn't use any citations of scientific publications, that may be where some quotes originated but no sources are shown.

Perhaps you read one of the early, incomplete copies of the document that circulated late last week, rather than the original, full document that he published internally (it wasn't an e-mail), which contained footnotes and citations? In just a quick skim, I found that he linked to at least five separate papers in the first six pages alone, as well as including numerous additional links to articles, Wikipedia, and other sources that he used to back up his points or clarify the way he was using various phrases.

Moreover, he recommended against Google continuing what he is saying are illegal hiring practices that, contrary to California laws against affirmative action, disproportionately favor minorities. He's calling for the same standard to be applied to all candidates, rather than for some to be measured against a more lenient standard, as he's suggesting is currently the case. That, in and of itself, is not a bigoted statement, since calling for equal treatment is not bigotry, though I'll agree with what I assume would be your viewpoint that a bigot would use those same arguments as a guise to push their agenda.

He co-wrote two papers on microbiology, not neurology.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

I guess people are easily misled by someone spouting BS.

He co-wrote two papers on microbiology, not neurology.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

I guess people are easily misled by someone spouting BS.

It's scientifically accepted fact.

I went back and read your Wikipedia link: "One study examined sex differences in the Big Five personality traits across 55 nations. It found that, across the 55 nations studied, the most pronounced difference was in neuroticism. ... In Botswana and Indonesia, men scored slightly higher than women.

Sure make it look like there's a strong cultural role in sex differences in neuroticism.

It's scientifically accepted fact.

I went back and read your Wikipedia link: "One study examined sex differences in the Big Five personality traits across 55 nations. It found that, across the 55 nations studied, the most pronounced difference was in neuroticism. ... In Botswana and Indonesia, men scored slightly higher than women.

Sure make it look like there's a strong cultural role in sex differences in neuroticism.

Yesterday it was 54. I wish you trolls would make up your collective minds (or lack thereof) about this stuff. Am I a fat virgin or fat fuck today?

You're making the category error of assuming that all of the people who are AC's are trolls, who have a collective will & mind, and are coordinating in some way. I've never called you a names - I don't care where you dick has been (or hasn't been), and I don't see the point in calling someone names based on their being fat. If I'm going to insult you, it'll be because you act like an ignoramus, not because you're fat.

Feel free to carry the discussion on my blog.

Again, I have no interest in creating content for your blog and lining your pockets. I won't produce a long, well-written post for your blog so that you can reap the financial rewards.

Which I've been hearing about for the last 48 years of my life. If it wasn't ten, it was 20. If it wasn't 20, it was 30. If it wasn't 30, it was 40. If it wasn't 40, it was 54 or 57.

Just because you haven't ended your life yet doesn't mean you are not shortening it with your existing lifestyle. And those warnings are silly and untrue, until they're serious and true - which you usually realize right about the time you keel over from a massive coronary.

It is indisputable fact that being dramatically obese shortens your life span. A 5'10 man weighing 357 has a BMI of 51.2, which falls into the "Class III Obesity" category in the NIH article above - this means an average reduction in lifespan of up to 14 years, according to their results. The number varies, but they generally range from 10-20 years lower life expectancy. Average lifespan for a man in the US is 78 years today. Knock 10-20 years off that, and you're dead at 58-68 years of age. Yeah, being fat at 20 won't usually kill you. Being fat from a young age into your late 40's means you've probably already knocked off a significant chunk of your lifespan.

Don't want to believe an AC? How about the NIH?

Or, how about the UK's NHS?

Or, how about the CDC?

Yes, you've claimed to be losing a pound a week - that's great if it's true, keep it up. But the fact that you suddenly had a story to tell about how you really were losing weight makes the entire claim suspect. You claim to be doing the "same thing" you've been doing for the last 5 years, but suddenly, in the last 13 weeks, it's turned into dramatic weight loss that matches exactly what the CDC is telling you to shoot for. If nothing changed, why haven't you been losing weight at a pound a week for the last 5 years? It doesn't add up.

And, in the meantime, your high blood pressure, high blood sugar, high triglycerides & cholesterol are all putting undue stress on your body, making it harder to get the rest and exercise you need. Imagine what you could do with your weight loss if you actually took good, medically sound advice, and worked at it without inventing a million reasons why the advice is just another "troll" attempt?

Neuroticism - one of the Big 5 personality traits, more prevalent in women.

Agreeableness - one of the Big 5 personality traits, more prevalen in women.

Source: Replicating previous findings, women reported higher Big Five Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism scores than men.

Women score almost two thirds of a standard deviation higher on Neuroticism. What are we even talking about here? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

An interesting question for discussion might be whether we agree or disagree with what the fired employee said. That is, do you think women are "neurotic" and show "a lower stress tolerance" (and that their careers suffer because women are "agreeable" rather than "assertive")

There's nothing to discuss. It's scientifically accepted fact.

Abstract
In college and adult samples, women score higher then men on the Five Factor Model (FFM) personality traits of Neuroticism and Agreeableness. The present study assessed the extent to which these gender differences held in a sample of 486 older adults, ranging in age from 65-98 (M = 75, SD = 6.5), using the NEO-Five Factor Inventory. Mean and Covariance Structure models testing gender differences at the level of latent traits revealed higher levels of Neuroticism (d = .52) and Agreeableness (d = .35) in older women than older men. The consistency of these findings with prior work in younger samples attests to the stability of gender differentiation on Neuroticism and Agreeableness across the lifespan. Gender differences on these traits should be considered in personality research among older, as well as middle age and younger adults.

I'm sorry if that shatters your worldview, but in this case reality has a distinctly anti-liberal bias.

As for agreeableness, I can't say if it helps or hurt their careers, but I don't think he ever claimed that. IIRC, he simply said one of the reasons their salaries were lower was because they were more agreeable, and more likely to accept an initial salary offer rather than negotiate for a higher salary.

An interesting question for discussion might be whether we agree or disagree with what the fired employee said. That is, do you think women are "neurotic" and show "a lower stress tolerance" (and that their careers suffer because women are "agreeable" rather than "assertive")

There's nothing to discuss. It's scientifically accepted fact.

Abstract
In college and adult samples, women score higher then men on the Five Factor Model (FFM) personality traits of Neuroticism and Agreeableness. The present study assessed the extent to which these gender differences held in a sample of 486 older adults, ranging in age from 65-98 (M = 75, SD = 6.5), using the NEO-Five Factor Inventory. Mean and Covariance Structure models testing gender differences at the level of latent traits revealed higher levels of Neuroticism (d = .52) and Agreeableness (d = .35) in older women than older men. The consistency of these findings with prior work in younger samples attests to the stability of gender differentiation on Neuroticism and Agreeableness across the lifespan. Gender differences on these traits should be considered in personality research among older, as well as middle age and younger adults.

I'm sorry if that shatters your worldview, but in this case reality has a distinctly anti-liberal bias.

As for agreeableness, I can't say if it helps or hurt their careers, but I don't think he ever claimed that. IIRC, he simply said one of the reasons their salaries were lower was because they were more agreeable, and more likely to accept an initial salary offer rather than negotiate for a higher salary.

It's all old, tired arguments that have been comprehensively refuted before. For example, he states that women are more neurotic and less able to deal with stress. We know that isn't true, because we have studied it in great detail.

I'm not so sure about that. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p..., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p....

Of course, as the first of those abstracts points out, variation among individuals is far higher than the measured difference between genders, so it's hard to see how this can have a large effect.

It's all old, tired arguments that have been comprehensively refuted before. For example, he states that women are more neurotic and less able to deal with stress. We know that isn't true, because we have studied it in great detail.

I'm not so sure about that. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p..., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p....

Of course, as the first of those abstracts points out, variation among individuals is far higher than the measured difference between genders, so it's hard to see how this can have a large effect.

Since when did I mention Type 1? I said diabetes. Diabetes just means that someone has elevated blood glucose due to impaired insulin production.

Pancreatitis is listed as a possible cause of diabetes here:
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/heal...

I hope the NIH is good enough for you. But you seem to be all knowing so perhaps it isn't good enough for you.

I'll give you a hint: doctors typically give names to disease symptoms not to disease causes.

Although there is an effect of vegetarian diets on diabetes (beyond BMI), I don't think it is strong enough to suggest that Type 2 diabetes is a zoonotic disease: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

No, I have an event backed up by plenty of studies.

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/fl...

GMOS are allergens.

And worse...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

"GM potatoes
Feeding mice with potatoes transformed with a Bacillus thuringiensis var.kurstaki Cry1 toxin gene or the toxin itself was shown to have caused villus epithelial cell hypertrophy and multinucleation, disrupted microvilli, mitochondrial degeneration, increased numbers of lysosomes and autophagic vacuoles and activation of crypt Paneth cells (Fares and El-Sayed 1998). "

"
Allergenicity studies

When the gene is from a crop of known allergenicity, it is easy to establish whether the GM food is allergenic using in vitro tests, such as RAST or immunoblotting, with sera from individuals sensitised to the original crop. This was demonstrated in GM soybeans expressing the brasil nut 2S proteins (Nordlee et al. 1996) or in GM potatoes expressing cod protein genes (Noteborn et al. 1995). It is also relatively easy to assess whether genetic engineering affected the potency of endogenous allergens (Burks and Fuchs 1995). Farm workers exposed to B. thuringiensis pesticide were shown to have developed skin sensitization and IgE antibodies to the Bt spore extract. With their sera it may now therefore be possible to test for the allergenic potential of GM crops expressing Bt toxin (Bernstein et al. 1999). It is all the more important because Bt toxin Cry1Ac has been shown to be a potent oral/nasal antigen and adjuvant (Vazquez-Padron et al. 2000).

The decision-tree type of indirect approach based on factors such as size and stability of the transgenically expressed protein (Oâ(TM)Neil et al. 1998) is even more unsound, particularly as its stability to gut proteolysis is assessed by an in vitro (simulated) testing (Metcalf et al. 1996) instead of in vivo (human/animal) testing and this is fundamentally wrong. The concept that most allergens are abundant proteins may be misleading because, for example, Gad c 1, the major allergen in codfish, is not a predominant protein (Vazquez-Padron et al. 2000). However, when the gene responsible for the allergenicity is known, such as the gene of the alpha-amylase/trypsin inhibitors/allergens in rice, cloning and sequencing opens the way for reducing their level by antisense RNA strategy (Nakamura and Matsuda 1996).

It is known that the main concerns about adverse effects of GM foods on health are the transfer of antibiotic resistance, toxicity and allergenicity. There are two issues from an allergic standpoint. These are the transfer of a known allergen that may occur from a crop into a non-allergenic target crop and the creation of a neo-allergen where de novo sensitisation occurs in the population. Patients allergic to Brazil nuts and not to soy bean then showed an IgE mediated response towards GM soy bean. Lack (2002) argued that it is possible to prevent such occurrences by doing IgE-binding studies and taking into account physico-chemical characteristics of proteins and referring to known allergen databases. The second possible scenario of de novo sensitisation does not easily lend itself to risk assessment. He reports that evidence that the technology used for the production of GM foods poses an allergic threat per se is lacking very much compared to other methodologies widely accepted in the food industry."

As a fun aside, it seems to me that the only thing in nature that is either growing or dying (as in, not biologically successful if it ceases growing) is cancer.

How is cancer not biologically successful per your definition? Especially the 15% of human cancers that are caused by viruses. So what if it kills a host, it just moves on to another ...

We have become a sad population if we reproach people having 3 kids.

TWO kids is the magic number of kids to have to not increase OR decrease world population.

2.1, actually: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

If you're bothered by the idea of fractions, consider that as 90% of the women having 2 children and 10% having 3 children.

Considering the mental health field has been moving steadily away from classifying Gender Dysphoria as a mental illness, I'm not sure that argument's as useful as you think it is.

Not exactly. All dysphorias are a diagnosis of depression (dysphoria means the opposite of euphoria.) They're likewise wanting to rename it yet again to gender incongruence, but even so it still manifests as a dysphoria. But that aside, 62.7% of trans people have at least one psychiatric axis I comorbidity:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

In addition, 81.4% have at least one psychiatric axis 2 condition, with the average being 3.0 conditions per patient: (The most common being narcissistic personality disorder.)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

While the DSMV doesn't classify transexualism itself as a mental disorder, the psychiatric community isn't unanimous in that belief, as noted in the above link. Also noted in that link is that many believe these comorbidities should be treated first. But, they often aren't as practitioners can be and have been fired for merely suggesting that this happen because it goes against the current (political) thinking that this has nothing to do with mental illness.

In my (non-expert) opinion, this has a common pathway with species dysphoria and BIID, who also typically have the same comorbidities. At the very least, if they treated these comorbidities, you'd probably end up with a much lower suicide rate among them.

Considering the mental health field has been moving steadily away from classifying Gender Dysphoria as a mental illness, I'm not sure that argument's as useful as you think it is.

Not exactly. All dysphorias are a diagnosis of depression (dysphoria means the opposite of euphoria.) They're likewise wanting to rename it yet again to gender incongruence, but even so it still manifests as a dysphoria. But that aside, 62.7% of trans people have at least one psychiatric axis I comorbidity:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

In addition, 81.4% have at least one psychiatric axis 2 condition, with the average being 3.0 conditions per patient: (The most common being narcissistic personality disorder.)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

While the DSMV doesn't classify transexualism itself as a mental disorder, the psychiatric community isn't unanimous in that belief, as noted in the above link. Also noted in that link is that many believe these comorbidities should be treated first. But, they often aren't as practitioners can be and have been fired for merely suggesting that this happen because it goes against the current (political) thinking that this has nothing to do with mental illness.

In my (non-expert) opinion, this has a common pathway with species dysphoria and BIID, who also typically have the same comorbidities. At the very least, if they treated these comorbidities, you'd probably end up with a much lower suicide rate among them.

Trans suicide rates are between 40-50% https://williamsinstitute.law.... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

It is also utterly false:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/

> I don't know why you think someone having a different gender identity than their assigned at birth identity somehow must make them "weak."

Science. But the left seems to engage in magical thinking as if reality actually had a liberal bias, so when science contradicts them, they have a hard time accepting that:

Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.
(2015, not decades ago)

A german study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12832250) results state "In 270 (75%) of these 359 patients, cross-gender identification was interpreted as an epiphenomenon of other psychiatric illnesses, notably personality, mood, dissociative, and psychotic disorders. Major mood disorders, dissociative disorders and psychotic disorders reported in 79% of transgenders."
(2003, not decades ago)

Even if you argue that transgenderism isn't in itself a mental disorder, a transgender individual is far more likely to have multiple other mental disorders, a much higher risk of suicide, etc. It then becomes fair to say that if you are transgender, you personally might be mentally stable enough to be in the military but there is a very high statistical chance that you are nuts in ways that are prohibitively not conducive to the purpose of the military and the stresses that occur due to that purpose.

Good points, notwithstanding the snark about hipsters being feminine (I mean, where do you go with lumberjack beard AND skinny jeans?).

Anyway, I think you're missing a huge culprit, possible the biggest one: PLASTIC.

It's in absolutely everything. These even if you're drinking raw tiger blood, if you're on Slashdot odds I daresay you're not out in the tundra killing it with your stone-tipped spear. That means organic or "conventional", vegan or meagan, it's been shipped in plastic, or you're consuming it in a plastic container, with plastic utensils.

Plastic is a known estrogen mimic:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

I'd bet on plastic over soy any day.

Though to be fair, soy is found in a fair wider variety of foodstuffs than anyone had imagine. Plus, when you get into questions of diet and the effect of different foods it gets really hard to figure out what the "natural" human diet is.

One does not follow the other. Testosterone is a major necessity for males, and is used in much more than sperm production.

TFA doesn't mention testosterone being down.

Ol Olsoc does. https://www.healio.com/endocri...

http://www.webmd.com/men/news/... http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/d...

A low Testosterone level in a male decreases sperm count. In on of those weird twists of fate, supplementing testosterone will lower it even further. http://www.webmd.com/men/featu... So one of the keys to healthy sperm production is to ensure the body is producing it's very own testosterone, not via creams or injections.

Is the trend of lower testosterone levels responsible for the trend of lower sperm count? Correlation is not causation, but even if it were some other cause, that cause would be lowering testosterone levels at the same time.

And my original posting which notes that males are being inundated with phytoestrogens in the west, is not crackpot-ism. Even the NIH is getting involved. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... It is worth noting that in opposition to the politico-economic interests demanding that phyto-estrogens be completely safe for males, they note :

"Further investigation is needed before a firm conclusion can be drawn. In the meantime, caution would suggest that perinatal phyto-oestrogen exposure, such as that found in infants feeding on soy-based formula, should be avoided.

And let us not forget all of the estrogen mimics like Bisphenol-A, Phthalates, Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and beef growth hormones. These chemicals have been and many are still used

So really, it doesn't matter if TFA doesn't mention Testosterone level. Testosterone levels are relevant to Sperm count, and Testosterone levels are also related to estrogen loads. Conjecture on that is a completely valid path of discussion. Sperm count is down, and males are exposed to a lot of chemicals that are proven to do just that. Making discussion that speaks to these facts being somehow off limits doesn't make a lot of sense.

My first thought too! Last year there was an ig nobel prize for reasearch that showed wearing synthetic pants heated mens balls enough to serve as a contraceptive. Sure the sample was small (N=14) but it's a cheap and reversible contraception method. Frankly i think they deserved the Nobel prize. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... That's deskjobs for you, that and endocrine disruptors.

Well, thank GOD that coal is such a better alternative that doesn't cause cancer or other health defects in the slightest, otherwise we'd have to go without electricity according to your logic.....

While there seem to be a large number of people who keep thinking T-Rex is a hunter.

Have to say, I'm more and more in the camp which suggest that T-Rex is more like a vulture. T-Rex has a big noose, body for long walks, not sprints, etc.

Not sure why you put yourself in that camp. Actual evidence has been available for years:

Physical evidence of predatory behavior in Tyrannosaurus rex

Abstract

Feeding strategies of the large theropod, Tyrannosaurus rex, either as a predator or a scavenger, have been a topic of debate previously compromised by lack of definitive physical evidence. Tooth drag and bone puncture marks have been documented on suggested prey items, but are often difficult to attribute to a specific theropod. Further, postmortem damage cannot be distinguished from intravital occurrences, unless evidence of healing is present. Here we report definitive evidence of predation by T. rex: a tooth crown embedded in a hadrosaurid caudal centrum, surrounded by healed bone growth. This indicates that the prey escaped and lived for some time after the injury, providing direct evidence of predatory behavior by T. rex.

From what I've seen there is some evidence that T-Rex's were actually scavengers.

Ever own a dog?

Even a pet dog will eat anything.

Or how about a close T-Rex relative such as a chicken? What won't a chicken eat?

So yeah, a T-Rex would scavenge. Why not?

But guess what? We KNOW T-Rex was a PREDATOR:

Physical evidence of predatory behavior in Tyrannosaurus rex

Feeding strategies of the large theropod, Tyrannosaurus rex, either as a predator or a scavenger, have been a topic of debate previously compromised by lack of definitive physical evidence. Tooth drag and bone puncture marks have been documented on suggested prey items, but are often difficult to attribute to a specific theropod. Further, postmortem damage cannot be distinguished from intravital occurrences, unless evidence of healing is present. Here we report definitive evidence of predation by T. rex: a tooth crown embedded in a hadrosaurid caudal centrum, surrounded by healed bone growth. This indicates that the prey escaped and lived for some time after the injury, providing direct evidence of predatory behavior by T. rex.

Some drugs really do expire with potentially disastrous results.

No it doesn't. But when it hits the hydrochloric acid in your stomach the methanol molecules convert to formaldehyde, which as we all know due to the EPA filings, is a very toxic carcinogen. It also causes retinal damage leading to premature blindness.

REFs:

• Bowen, J., Aspartame Toxicity and Methanol, Ethanol, Pectin, Methyl Alcohol
• Schwartz, G. R., Aspartame and breast and other cancers

The direct effect of artificial sweeteners on insulin levels (as described by GP) seems to be unsubstantiated. There is, however, an Israeli study demonstrating an effect of artificial sweeteners on gut bacteria, which in turn does result in increased blood sugar levels.

Also, the negative effect of those sweeteners seems to be very apparent if you compare their usage on a national level (try finding a non-light product in a US supermarket, for example) with the prevalence of obesity (US way worse than other countries). I've often been flabbergasted by this, looking at the rows and rows of light products and the humongous people buying them and thinking "guys, wake up, this is obviously not working!". Not only is it not helping, it's actively making things worse.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Yes it does. If out of the hundreds of other kids in my school, nearly all of which had chicken pox as children, not one of them, their siblings, or cousins died of it, then yes, that makes it rare.

Well, I did say "super-rare", but I will grant you that chicken pox is rarely fatal - the CDC numbers seem to be about 100 death per 3,500,000 cases, or 1 death per 35,000 infections. Still worth preventing in my mind but I can see that it is well within the risk level of things that we find "acceptable". Traffic deaths in the US are about 1 death per 10,000 per year people for comparison.

If the same standard of rarity and epidemic used for diseases like measles, mumps, and chicken pox were applied to vaccine damages to children we would hear nothing at all on the news except a constant screaming about the hundreds of thousands of kids with permanent damage caused by vaccines.

I guess you'll have to colour me unconvinced. What exactly are the "hundreds of thousands of kids" you are referrig to? If you referred to them earlier in more detail, I don't seem to be able to find it.

The only info I can quickly find (such as https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... ) seems to indicate that the vaccinated have slightly lower death rates immediately following vaccination - but the deaths are virtually all in the elderly, and it did not look at "permanent damage" less sever than death (which incidentally is pretty permanent).

Oh, a bit more searching turns up http://www.politifact.com/pund... which gives a bit more detail using the VAERS data. It does look like there might be as many as a 100+ deaths associated with vaccines, with the strong caveat of the relationship between correlation and causality. Of course that is ALL vaccines, so even for just chicken pox, the "lives saved" seems to be on the same order as the "lives lost" for all vaccines combined. If each specific vaccine prevents more deaths than can be attributed to that specific vaccine, then the calculations seem to be in favour of widespread use. I would be interested in further research about these sorts of calculation.

If one believes that life starts at conception, then abortion is murder. While I can see why you wouldn't believe in creationism as that takes a leap of faith, I really don't get why you can't understand opposition to something as brutal as the slaughter of the innocent.

Are you aware of the fact that about half of all pregnancies spontaneously abort without any intervention in the first few weeks, often without anybody noticing either the pregnancy or its end? If "life starts at conception", god has designed a pretty awful system for keeping life alive.

From a theological perspective, with original sin there are no "innocents". And from a humanistic/scientific perspective, life itself (even human life, if you think every cell is human) is something we kill every time we scrub our hands, or pick our nose, or scratch an itch. Much of the dust in your house is dead skin cells your body dropped off. Life definitely plays second fiddle to mind, in my mind.

And from a practical perspective, it looks as if good and cheap access to contraceptives and sex ed are a lot better at reducing the rate of abortions than legal restraints. So is offering financial aid and career support for pregnant women. So if you really want to reduce the number of abortions, it's better to offer additional choices, not to restrict choices.

You're missing the point. He's equating the denial of vaccines to the denial of life-saving medical care. Do you assert that a parent has a right to deny life-saving medical care? For instance, if your child gashes his arm and is going to bleed out, and you instruct medical personnel not to patch him up because you believe stitches cause cancer, and he then bleeds out and dies, that doesn't harm me or my children. But I still have an interest, because to my mind you harmed your own children. It's the same reason I support laws that criminalize child abuse. We both likely support "imposing our views" on parents who think it's okay to mutilate their daughters' genitals. Parents do not have a right to deny "medically necessary" care to their children when there is no credible reason to do so.

What makes vaccines tricky is that they're preventative and aren't addressing any immediate medical concern. So the question now becomes, do parents have a right to deny preventative care to their children that is designed to prevent conditions that are, in most cases, not life-threatening? Also possibly the question of whether there is any credible reason to opt out of specific vaccinations. In my case, with my first child, we opted not to vaccinate him for Hepatitis B until he was about to enter school. Reasoning: HepB is primarily transmitted by shared needles and sex, not likely modes of transmission for a toddler, and I'd read a peer-reviewed study showing an elevated risk of childhood asthma in children who received the HepB vaccination as infants. Both my wife and I already have asthma, so our children already have an elevated risk due to heredity.

In a few posts, there seems to be some confusion about the use of java in medical imaging. What the above poster is likely talking about is a program released by the NIH called ImageJ. https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/ It is a wonderful application that is useful for image processing and even microscopy. There is a user community that has made many add-ons to increase functionality. It is written in java because macs are thing in the medical research world, and it was easier to support one java version than separate mac and PC things. That said, it was a little disingenuous to include that in this discussion about web programming. ImageJ is not used as web plugin, but more as an on local machine program. I think his point was, if you wish away all of java, you will wish away some things people use. The thread is about wishing away java for HTML purposes. Hope this helps.

We have a limited power representative government with Republicans holding a slight majority. There is a difference between goals and reality. If a few Democrats would admit that Obamacare is an utter failure and vote for the repeal/replace instead of digging in their heels just for shits and giggles, Obamacare would already be replaced. But the Dims don't give a shit about the country or people, only their own power.

Out of millions of statements by thousands of Republicans, yes, you can find a few mis-statements (but I understand the intent, to damn the entire group by the mis-statements of one). The statement you cite was clarified, and the intent, in part, was to reflect the reality of the recent spate of false rape allegations like Tawana Brawley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and Crystal Gail Mangum (Duke Lacrosse rape allegations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and the list goes on. Not all rape allegations are false, but not all are legitimate, clearly.

Beyond the legitimacy of the rape allegation, medical statistics indicate that just 5% of rape results in pregnancy, and most of those pregnancies occur in statutory rape (consentuality is not differentiated in the study) where the perpetrator is known by the victim and the act is frequent (so most of these pregnancies could be consentual sex between 18 year old boyfriend and 17 year old girl friend and they would still count as a rape pregnancy). Those are just the medical facts. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...