Slashdot Mirror

A slice of whole-grain multigrain bread has fewer calories than a slice of white bread, with 69 compared to 74. Those 5 calories, man, it's so important that your 550kcal sandwich be 545kcal.

There are some trace amounts of vitamins and minerals in the germ and husk, and fiber of course. Fiber has some great benefits, doesn't it?

Really, though, insoluble fiber is a non-essential nutrient. It's mostly talked up as a means of reducing colon cancer, even though scientific studies haven't been able to confirm any consistent association between colon cancer and fiber intake. Soluble fiber and resistant starch are equivalent, and provide food for gut flora. Other than that, insoluble fiber can slow food absorption, reducing the glycemic index of foods; this isn't important if you aren't taking in so much carbohydrate as to cause insulin-related problems anyway.

I just keep carbohydrates in the 25%-40% range of my diet, and avoid high amounts of fiber. I had to get a rectal exam after the most-recent uptick in fiber intake; exceeding 7g/day is painful, and passing 10g/day lead to me squirting a discharge of blood. My doctor says my colon is healthy and I probably just tore a blood vessel and bled a lot into my rectum. I'm a single data-point, and wouldn't much matter if it weren't for the fact that there are millions of others sensitive to fiber, and that practically nobody in any developed economy actually gets more than 10g of fiber a day, much less the ridiculous 25g people recommend.

Personally, my theory is a longer travel time correlates to higher insoluble fiber sensitivity; that stuff builds up if you're not crapping it out every day, and some people have as much as two weeks between bowel movements. I can get as high as 70% by mass fiber content in my feces pretty easily, meaning I get a piece of engineered wood in a fatty binder matrix--a pretty rigid material that's resistant to water. It's not hard when you realize I've got over half a kilogram of fiber in there on 25g/day.

Fiber has definite impacts on digestion, which have downstream health impacts. The dubious bits--the parts actual nutrition scientists (not nutritionists, but the researchers trying to find new knowledge) freely claim as unsupported--are its impacts on colon cancer and constipation. We know it affects intestinal fermentation, carbohydrate absorption, and cholesterol absorption; we also know it's non-essential.

So don't bring fiber into the conversation if you want to be taken seriously. It's the last refuge of people without an argument about nutrition. "But... but... but fiber!"

Fixed the link:
"Ameliorating hypertension and insulin resistance in subjects at increased cardiovascular risk: effects of acetyl-L-carnitine therapy"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

another good article:
"Oral Acetyl-l-Carnitine Therapy and Insulin Resistance"
http://hyper.ahajournals.org/c...

I have quit my IT work to become caregiver to my elderly Mom and Dad.
In the process, I have energized my mind (and theirs) by learning a lot about nootropics (and other) supplements.

When I tested Acetyl-L-carnitine (ALCAR) on myself, I found it gave me a great energy boost etc, etc.

Mom and Dad can't exercise and both have type 2 diabetes (one does insulin injections and the other does Metformin/Glipiside pills).
When started giving ALCAR to them, I found that after a few days their blood sugar levels were repeatedly going too low.

Then I a hunch, I googled ALCAR and insulin resistance. Here is one of the more scientific articles:
"Ameliorating hypertension and insulin resistance in subjects at increased cardiovascular risk: effects of acetyl-L-carnitine therapy."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]

My mom, who could never keep her sugar under control, just had her A1C tested.
Her doctor and I were stunned that it came in at 6.1 (excellent for a diabetic).

Of course ALCAR is a natural supplement that cannot be patented and is very cheap.
No drug company will invest in an FDA trial to test its safety and efficacy for the treatment of diabetes.
It will take a long time for American doctors to learn about it, since most of their education comes from drug company reps.

So -- if you have type 2 diabetes -- I'd suggest you study it, buy it, try it -- and spread the word !

Your wife and kids love your cooking because they're used to the blandness and lack of balance. It's no different than a person that's raised on a processed food diet thinking that properly salted food is bland.

The PROPER use of salt certainly has an effect on both the taste and the sensory feeling of food. Of course adding too much salt just makes things salty, the challenge is learning how to season food properly.

I'll also call out your B.S. "I couldn't afford that $1.00 expense" excuse. Salt is the cheapest seasoning in the supermarket.

I suggest you start here:

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

Where you can read fun facts like the following:

Salt imparts more than just a salt taste to overall food flavor. In work with a variety of foods (soups, rice, eggs, and potato chips), salt was found to improve the perception of product thickness, enhance sweetness, mask metallic or chemical off-notes, and round out overall flavor while improving flavor intensity (Gillette, 1985). These effects are illustrated in Figure 3-2, using soup as an example. In the figure, the distance of each of the points (e.g., âoethickness,â âoesaltinessâ) from the center point represents the intensity of that particular attribute. This figure shows that when salt is added to a soup, not only does it increase the saltiness of that soup (compare closed circles with open triangles and open circles for saltiness), but it also increases other positive attributes, such as thickness, fullness, and overall balance.

Dr Mike Knapton, associate medical director at the British Heart Foundation, said the claims about saturated fat were "unhelpful and misleading".He added: "Decades of research have proved that a diet rich in saturated fat increases 'bad' LDL cholesterol in your blood, which puts you at greater risk of a heart attack or stroke." Knapton states a fact coupled with an assumption. It's a fact that three chain lengths of saturated fat (12, 14, and 16) raise LDL cholesterol somewhat. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/cont... It is also a fact that 18 carbon chain stearic acid, which has no affect on LDL cholesterol levels is the most prominent fatty acid in unstable arterial plaques. http://circgenetics.ahajournal... I mention unstable arterial plaques because of this. "Numerous studies have demonstrated that coronary atherosclerosis affects all eutherian animals with a body mass comparable to or larger than humans, regardless of diet specialization and LDL levels. Surprisingly, in these mammals, lipid accumulations in arterial walls were more common in herbivores than carnivores." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... So the debate should not be about LDL levels. It should center on what causes plaque build up and what generates unstable plaques. It's peculiar that nobody mentions mercury toxicity. Quite likely mercury toxicity contributed significantly to heart attack risk among middle aged men during the first half of the 20th Century. "Mercury activates phospholipase A2 (PLA-2) which increases the risk for coronary artery and cerebral plaque rupture with MI and CVA. In addition, mercury induces formation of arachidonic acid metabolites such as total prostaglandins, thromboxane B2 and 8 isoprostane in vascular endothelial cells and activates vascular endothelial cell phospholipase D. Even very low levels of chronic mercury exposure promote endothelial dysfunction (ED) as a result of increased inflammation, oxidative stress, immune dysfunction, reduced oxidative defense, reduction in nitric oxide (NO) bioavailability. Many of the cardiovascular consequences of mercury are mitigated by concomitant intake of fish containing omega 3 fatty acids and by the intake of selenium. All of these pathobiological findings will increase the risk of hypertension, CHD, MI, CVD and CVA." https://www.esciencecentral.or... Note the mention of arachidonic acid metabolites. Why it that important? "Arachidonic acid (AA) in the diet can be efficiently absorbed and incorporated into tissue membranes, resulting in an increased production of thromboxane A2 by platelets and increased ex vivo platelet aggregability. Results from previous studies have shown that AA is concentrated in the membrane phospholipids of lean meats." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... "The highest level of AA in lean meat was in duck (99 mg/100 g), whereas pork fat had the highest concentration for the visible fats (180 mg/100 g). The lean portions of beef and lamb contained the higher levels of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) compared with white meats which were high in AA and low in n-3 PUFA. The present data indicate that the visible meat fat can make a contribution to dietary intake of AA, particularly for consumers with high intakes of fat from pork or poultry meat." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... It is unfortunate that scientists debating the saturated fat issue ignore endocannabinoid system (ECS) research. "We now know that major changes have taken place in the food supply over the last 100years, when food technology and modern agriculture led to enormous production of vegetable oils high in -6 fatty acids, and changed a

Dr Mike Knapton, associate medical director at the British Heart Foundation, said the claims about saturated fat were "unhelpful and misleading".He added: "Decades of research have proved that a diet rich in saturated fat increases 'bad' LDL cholesterol in your blood, which puts you at greater risk of a heart attack or stroke." Knapton states a fact coupled with an assumption. It's a fact that three chain lengths of saturated fat (12, 14, and 16) raise LDL cholesterol somewhat. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/cont... It is also a fact that 18 carbon chain stearic acid, which has no affect on LDL cholesterol levels is the most prominent fatty acid in unstable arterial plaques. http://circgenetics.ahajournal... I mention unstable arterial plaques because of this. "Numerous studies have demonstrated that coronary atherosclerosis affects all eutherian animals with a body mass comparable to or larger than humans, regardless of diet specialization and LDL levels. Surprisingly, in these mammals, lipid accumulations in arterial walls were more common in herbivores than carnivores." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... So the debate should not be about LDL levels. It should center on what causes plaque build up and what generates unstable plaques. It's peculiar that nobody mentions mercury toxicity. Quite likely mercury toxicity contributed significantly to heart attack risk among middle aged men during the first half of the 20th Century. "Mercury activates phospholipase A2 (PLA-2) which increases the risk for coronary artery and cerebral plaque rupture with MI and CVA. In addition, mercury induces formation of arachidonic acid metabolites such as total prostaglandins, thromboxane B2 and 8 isoprostane in vascular endothelial cells and activates vascular endothelial cell phospholipase D. Even very low levels of chronic mercury exposure promote endothelial dysfunction (ED) as a result of increased inflammation, oxidative stress, immune dysfunction, reduced oxidative defense, reduction in nitric oxide (NO) bioavailability. Many of the cardiovascular consequences of mercury are mitigated by concomitant intake of fish containing omega 3 fatty acids and by the intake of selenium. All of these pathobiological findings will increase the risk of hypertension, CHD, MI, CVD and CVA." https://www.esciencecentral.or... Note the mention of arachidonic acid metabolites. Why it that important? "Arachidonic acid (AA) in the diet can be efficiently absorbed and incorporated into tissue membranes, resulting in an increased production of thromboxane A2 by platelets and increased ex vivo platelet aggregability. Results from previous studies have shown that AA is concentrated in the membrane phospholipids of lean meats." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... "The highest level of AA in lean meat was in duck (99 mg/100 g), whereas pork fat had the highest concentration for the visible fats (180 mg/100 g). The lean portions of beef and lamb contained the higher levels of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) compared with white meats which were high in AA and low in n-3 PUFA. The present data indicate that the visible meat fat can make a contribution to dietary intake of AA, particularly for consumers with high intakes of fat from pork or poultry meat." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... It is unfortunate that scientists debating the saturated fat issue ignore endocannabinoid system (ECS) research. "We now know that major changes have taken place in the food supply over the last 100years, when food technology and modern agriculture led to enormous production of vegetable oils high in -6 fatty acids, and changed a

Dr Mike Knapton, associate medical director at the British Heart Foundation, said the claims about saturated fat were "unhelpful and misleading".He added: "Decades of research have proved that a diet rich in saturated fat increases 'bad' LDL cholesterol in your blood, which puts you at greater risk of a heart attack or stroke." Knapton states a fact coupled with an assumption. It's a fact that three chain lengths of saturated fat (12, 14, and 16) raise LDL cholesterol somewhat. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/cont... It is also a fact that 18 carbon chain stearic acid, which has no affect on LDL cholesterol levels is the most prominent fatty acid in unstable arterial plaques. http://circgenetics.ahajournal... I mention unstable arterial plaques because of this. "Numerous studies have demonstrated that coronary atherosclerosis affects all eutherian animals with a body mass comparable to or larger than humans, regardless of diet specialization and LDL levels. Surprisingly, in these mammals, lipid accumulations in arterial walls were more common in herbivores than carnivores." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... So the debate should not be about LDL levels. It should center on what causes plaque build up and what generates unstable plaques. It's peculiar that nobody mentions mercury toxicity. Quite likely mercury toxicity contributed significantly to heart attack risk among middle aged men during the first half of the 20th Century. "Mercury activates phospholipase A2 (PLA-2) which increases the risk for coronary artery and cerebral plaque rupture with MI and CVA. In addition, mercury induces formation of arachidonic acid metabolites such as total prostaglandins, thromboxane B2 and 8 isoprostane in vascular endothelial cells and activates vascular endothelial cell phospholipase D. Even very low levels of chronic mercury exposure promote endothelial dysfunction (ED) as a result of increased inflammation, oxidative stress, immune dysfunction, reduced oxidative defense, reduction in nitric oxide (NO) bioavailability. Many of the cardiovascular consequences of mercury are mitigated by concomitant intake of fish containing omega 3 fatty acids and by the intake of selenium. All of these pathobiological findings will increase the risk of hypertension, CHD, MI, CVD and CVA." https://www.esciencecentral.or... Note the mention of arachidonic acid metabolites. Why it that important? "Arachidonic acid (AA) in the diet can be efficiently absorbed and incorporated into tissue membranes, resulting in an increased production of thromboxane A2 by platelets and increased ex vivo platelet aggregability. Results from previous studies have shown that AA is concentrated in the membrane phospholipids of lean meats." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... "The highest level of AA in lean meat was in duck (99 mg/100 g), whereas pork fat had the highest concentration for the visible fats (180 mg/100 g). The lean portions of beef and lamb contained the higher levels of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) compared with white meats which were high in AA and low in n-3 PUFA. The present data indicate that the visible meat fat can make a contribution to dietary intake of AA, particularly for consumers with high intakes of fat from pork or poultry meat." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... It is unfortunate that scientists debating the saturated fat issue ignore endocannabinoid system (ECS) research. "We now know that major changes have taken place in the food supply over the last 100years, when food technology and modern agriculture led to enormous production of vegetable oils high in -6 fatty acids, and changed a

Three other meta-studies:

From 2010: Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease
Patty W Siri-Tarino, Qi Sun, Frank B Hu, and Ronald M Krauss
During 5–23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.19; P = 0.22) for CHD, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05; P = 0.11) for stroke, and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.11; P = 0.95) for CVD. Consideration of age, sex, and study quality did not change the results.

From 2013: Food Sources of Saturated Fat and the Association With Mortality: A Meta-Analysis
Therese A. O’Sullivan, PhD, Katherine Hafekost, BSc,corresponding author Francis Mitrou, BEc, and David Lawrence, PhD, BSc
Pooled relative risk estimates demonstrated that high intakes of milk, cheese, yogurt, and butter were not associated with a significantly increased risk of mortality compared with low intakes. High intakes of meat and processed meat were significantly associated with an increased risk of mortality but were associated with a decreased risk in a subanalysis of Asian studies. ...
We chose mortality as the outcome, as it is generally well quantified and represents a final health outcome. Mortality type included all-cause, CVD, or cancer. Exclusion criteria included animal models and populations defined by preexisting disease or participants younger than 16 years. We did not place any restrictions on follow-up time. We included 26 studies after exclusions, representing data from 1800418 participants.

From 2015: Dairy consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease: an updated meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.
Qin LQ, Xu JY, Han SF, Zhang ZL, Zhao YY, Szeto IM
A total of 22 studies were eligible for analysis. An inverse association was found between dairy consumption and overall risk of CVD [9 studies; relative risk (RR)=0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.81, 0.96] and stroke (12 studies; RR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.77, 0.99). However, no association was established between dairy consumption and CHD risk (12 studies; RR=0.94, 95% CI: 0.82, 1.07). Stroke risk was significantly reduced by consumption of low-fat dairy (6 studies; RR=0.93, 95% CI: 0.88, 0.99) and cheese (4 studies; RR=0.91, 95% CI: 0.84, 0.98), and CHD risk was significantly lowered by cheese consumption (7 studies; RR=0.84, 95% CI: 0.71, 1.00).

Three other meta-studies:

From 2010: Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease
Patty W Siri-Tarino, Qi Sun, Frank B Hu, and Ronald M Krauss
During 5–23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.19; P = 0.22) for CHD, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05; P = 0.11) for stroke, and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.11; P = 0.95) for CVD. Consideration of age, sex, and study quality did not change the results.

From 2013: Food Sources of Saturated Fat and the Association With Mortality: A Meta-Analysis
Therese A. O’Sullivan, PhD, Katherine Hafekost, BSc,corresponding author Francis Mitrou, BEc, and David Lawrence, PhD, BSc
Pooled relative risk estimates demonstrated that high intakes of milk, cheese, yogurt, and butter were not associated with a significantly increased risk of mortality compared with low intakes. High intakes of meat and processed meat were significantly associated with an increased risk of mortality but were associated with a decreased risk in a subanalysis of Asian studies. ...
We chose mortality as the outcome, as it is generally well quantified and represents a final health outcome. Mortality type included all-cause, CVD, or cancer. Exclusion criteria included animal models and populations defined by preexisting disease or participants younger than 16 years. We did not place any restrictions on follow-up time. We included 26 studies after exclusions, representing data from 1800418 participants.

From 2015: Dairy consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease: an updated meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.
Qin LQ, Xu JY, Han SF, Zhang ZL, Zhao YY, Szeto IM
A total of 22 studies were eligible for analysis. An inverse association was found between dairy consumption and overall risk of CVD [9 studies; relative risk (RR)=0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.81, 0.96] and stroke (12 studies; RR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.77, 0.99). However, no association was established between dairy consumption and CHD risk (12 studies; RR=0.94, 95% CI: 0.82, 1.07). Stroke risk was significantly reduced by consumption of low-fat dairy (6 studies; RR=0.93, 95% CI: 0.88, 0.99) and cheese (4 studies; RR=0.91, 95% CI: 0.84, 0.98), and CHD risk was significantly lowered by cheese consumption (7 studies; RR=0.84, 95% CI: 0.71, 1.00).

Three other meta-studies:

From 2010: Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease
Patty W Siri-Tarino, Qi Sun, Frank B Hu, and Ronald M Krauss
During 5–23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.19; P = 0.22) for CHD, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05; P = 0.11) for stroke, and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.11; P = 0.95) for CVD. Consideration of age, sex, and study quality did not change the results.

From 2013: Food Sources of Saturated Fat and the Association With Mortality: A Meta-Analysis
Therese A. O’Sullivan, PhD, Katherine Hafekost, BSc,corresponding author Francis Mitrou, BEc, and David Lawrence, PhD, BSc
Pooled relative risk estimates demonstrated that high intakes of milk, cheese, yogurt, and butter were not associated with a significantly increased risk of mortality compared with low intakes. High intakes of meat and processed meat were significantly associated with an increased risk of mortality but were associated with a decreased risk in a subanalysis of Asian studies. ...
We chose mortality as the outcome, as it is generally well quantified and represents a final health outcome. Mortality type included all-cause, CVD, or cancer. Exclusion criteria included animal models and populations defined by preexisting disease or participants younger than 16 years. We did not place any restrictions on follow-up time. We included 26 studies after exclusions, representing data from 1800418 participants.

From 2015: Dairy consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease: an updated meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.
Qin LQ, Xu JY, Han SF, Zhang ZL, Zhao YY, Szeto IM
A total of 22 studies were eligible for analysis. An inverse association was found between dairy consumption and overall risk of CVD [9 studies; relative risk (RR)=0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.81, 0.96] and stroke (12 studies; RR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.77, 0.99). However, no association was established between dairy consumption and CHD risk (12 studies; RR=0.94, 95% CI: 0.82, 1.07). Stroke risk was significantly reduced by consumption of low-fat dairy (6 studies; RR=0.93, 95% CI: 0.88, 0.99) and cheese (4 studies; RR=0.91, 95% CI: 0.84, 0.98), and CHD risk was significantly lowered by cheese consumption (7 studies; RR=0.84, 95% CI: 0.71, 1.00).

Phytoestrogens are a scientific fact. Just how much of an impact they have on the average diet is still up for debate:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

A lot of people on the "paleo" diet specifically seek out grass-fed beef, but it's awfully expensive in general.

On average, white people commit fewer crimes, so it would be stupid to profile them because they are white.

In general “criming”, there is a risk that racial bias will be self enforcing? Lets assume that there is a community with 50/50 split of blacks and whites and that crimes are committed equally between groups. However, police and judiciary are racist. Now, say a white kid steals a candy and a black kid steals a candy. A decent but racist cop sees candy stealing as a thing kids do, so he will give a stern talk about rights and wrongs and will make the kid apologize. Unless the kid is black, in which case he is already a lost cause, and must be isolated form community before more damage is done. In statistics, black kids steal more.

Perhaps there were two burglaries, one committed by white guy, another by black. In both cases evidence are a bit murky, but since the jury is racist, they are more easily convinced that the black guy is certainly guilty, in case of the white guy, evidence is not beyond reasonable doubt. In statistics, black men commit more burglaries. And God forbid if a little white girl is raped and murdered in the woods. Even is there are no evidence, calls for justice are loud. Guess who is more likely to be picked as a scapegoat. In statistics, black men kill more.

But that's just hypothetical. In USA more whites than blacks abuse drugs. It's evident from randomized studies to declining life expectancy among whites, which is ofttimes attributed to drug abuse. Now, why are whites not profiled as “drug abusers”?

Diabetes could not be esily be separated in type 1 and type 2, there are also less than common types, like LADA, that is a type 1 diabetes that starts in adults and the destruction of beta cells is slower than type 1 in child, or type various MODY types. Some research has found that people with type 1 and type 2 have common genetic components. Classic Type 2 diabetes could be controlled with weight control, exercise, and diet, and of course other types of diabetes are better controlled with the same method.
Unfortunately the informations on correct dieting are a lot misleading, so people are thinking that the problem is sugar and not starches, so a "sane" potato mash or a rice casserole or "alfredo pasta" with margarine are really a bad choiche regarding the calorie and carbohydrate content. The fact that also not so sane foods like margarine or fructose arre advertised as "sane" doesn't help.

Actually, if anything, it goes the other way:

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

I fully understand the statistics and considerations that you are citing, However, you need to take it out of the theoretical and apply it to the story if you want to have a relevant post. The post was specifically about "micro babies" which is pure bunk based on the statistical deviation that they saw. (Micro babies are those born from 20-25 weeks that weigh an average of around 500g). Further, it is a well documented fact that baring genetic deformity or maternal compromise (i.e. drug use, malnutrition, etc.) fetal health and viability is predominantly predicated on gestational age and not weight at the time of birth. So the concern on birth weight is not relevant in that sense either...

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

https://www.babycenter.com/ave...

Gender reassignment surgery is considered an essential medical procedure. It prevents suicides. Look it up, asswipe.

I did. Gender reassignment surgery increases rates of suicide and psychiatric disorders. That's, in fact, consistent with your history of depression, sexual assault, and deep-seated anger.

How about victims... I didn't ask to be...

You were indeed victimized, by parents, teachers, and a society that evidently didn't teach you what you needed to know. Life stories like yours are exactly why I believe the US should turn around and not go down the path of the social welfare state any further: your life didn't have to go this way.

Medicaid, medicare, research, orphan drug programs, aid to 3rd world countries

None of those programs employ doctors.

you think all these programs are self-financing and make enough of a profit to pay doctors

I think those programs are one of the major reasons doctors are leaving the profession. They are also one of the major reasons American health care is so outrageously expensive and comparatively ineffective or even harmful.

E.g., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

So, cutting funding for those programs would probably be quite good for both doctors and patients.

This is common knowledge to anyone who has worked in the field - it's like asking for a citation for the claim that eating too much junk food leads to obesity. But here are two data points:

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So that's less than 20% of approved drugs that are discovered in academia to begin with. Academic labs aren't large-scale operations - a single-investigator R01 grant from the NIH might be $5 million over 5 years, and most investigators won't have more than a handful of these. For the really big superstar labs, let's assume a very generous upper bounds of $10 million per year (not all of which is necessarily from the government). If it's a big multi-investigator project, maybe double that. Except for a handful of big centers (like the NIH itself, or genome sequencing centers), academia just doesn't operate at a large scale - a typical university research department is just an aggregation of many smaller units that are largely autonomous. The hidden advantage to these organizational limitations is that failed projects usually fail before anyone spends too much money on them. So let's hypothesize at the extreme, academics spent no more than $50 million per drug candidate. Compare to the numbers in the Wikipedia article.

Now, you could of course argue that because drug development is informed by the public-domain knowledge generated by taxpayer-funded researchers, drug companies are leaching off the public in that way too. I guess that's technically true (albeit difficult-to-impossible to quantify), but you might as well argue that because the government invented digital computers, companies like IBM and Intel should have been nationalized. (Note that the difference in salary between academia and big pharma is relatively large - to shift more drug development to academia, you'll need to raise salaries, or find a lot of scientists willing to work for academic salary while doing grunt work on massive projects that will mostly likely fail.)

To pick a more specific example, the NIH spends approximately $1.2 billion per year on aging-related research (including but not limited to Alzheimer's):

https://www.nia.nih.gov/about/...

Most of that will be single-investigator grants, and as anyone who has worked in basic research can tell you, the majority of the grants that are funded won't lead to any immediate treatments, although they may provide useful information in the long term. In contrast, here is an estimate of the total cost per Alzheimer's drug being $5.7 billion (including failures, and keep in mind the overwhelming bulk of that is spent by drug companies):

https://alzres.biomedcentral.c...

This isn't to argue that taxpayer funding of basic research isn't valuable - it's absolutely essential IMHO. But most of what it produces isn't going to lead directly to new drugs or treatments.

Obligatory disclaimer: I do not work for a drug company, but I did receive funding from them as a government scientist, and receive a small bonus from IP licensing fees every year. Frankly it was far more trouble than it was worth; drug companies are kind of a pain in the ass to deal with, even if you only talk to the scientists.

Tardigrades are incredibly durable, and it's good not to just go shitting all over other planetary bodies, but I was wondering how overly cautious they're being. So I decided to try to figure it out, but I'm missing how much gamma radiation they'd be exposed to in ten years.

For anyone else curious:

Tardigrades don't thrive in extreme environments so they wouldn't be breeding like crazy. They do go into hibernation without water or oxygen and can last in that state for at least a hundred years

Median lethal doses of for tardigrades was 4400 Gy gamma radiation outside of water over 48 hours, though over 1000 gys made them sterile.

Humans will die despite medical treatment after 8 sv of radiation. I found that solar flares could produce 60 sv to an astronaut in a space suit. But after half an hour of searching, I couldn't find how much radiation a tardigrade would be exposed to over 10 years in whatever shielding is available on the probe.

There were thousands of articles on "how much radiation are you puny humans exposed to in the cushy ISS before NASA makes you come back down a few months later" and even more articles along the lines of "Human astronauts incompetent to undergo cryptobiosis, again in their nice space ships, would get too much radiation on just a little hop to mars." BUT NO FUCKING NUMBERS! Ugh, so unscientific AND anthropocentric!

Ironically, "Autism Speaks" is not actually run or even really supported by autistic people, so it wasn't "autistic folks" that came up with the blue.

Even weirder than that, the methods that Autism Speaks espouses to "fix" autistic people is closely related to the methods that were used back in the day to try to "fix" gay people. Actually even the same guy (Lovaas) involved in both "therapies".

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

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

Ironically, "Autism Speaks" is not actually run or even really supported by autistic people, so it wasn't "autistic folks" that came up with the blue.

Even weirder than that, the methods that Autism Speaks espouses to "fix" autistic people is closely related to the methods that were used back in the day to try to "fix" gay people. Actually even the same guy (Lovaas) involved in both "therapies".

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

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

They'll talk about, say, chemtrails, and when I don't believe it, they respond with something like "oh you don't think the government would do something like that? don't be so naive". No, the issue here is not that I trust the government (or whoever) not to be malicious. I know very well that they (government and otherwise) are malicious all the time. If it came to light that this outlandish thing you claim they're doing was actually happening,

Well the US government basically did do that in the 50s and 60s. Now that doesn't mean that I believe the current conspiracy theories about chemtrails, the lizard people, FEMA camps, or the like but given past performance of the US government with things like Operation LAC, the internment of various groups of people, and other actions I don't believe that my government should be entirely trusted either.

This is not the oldest such proof
This is something that has been known since the early days of charging Leiden jars with a Van de Graaff generator and then licking the leads. One of the early researchers went so far as to directly stimulate his optic, olfactory, and auditory senses (that's the citation I was trying to find, but stumbled on this recent one first).

A lot of them have been caused by the fact that without modern medicine, we wouldn't survive long enough to experience them.

Except that we now have children with fatty liver disease and type II diabetes. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Kudos to the kid saving his mom, but it is also kind of sad about how isolated and dependent on institutions and technology so many of us have become... So much so, we just take it for granted a four year old would have no neighbor or relative nearby to turn to.

Perhaps I was just lucky to grow up (lower-ish) middle class in a suburb in the 1960s with siblings, many stay-at-home moms as friendly neighbors all around, as well as lots of kids playing in the street. That seems to be a world that perhaps hardly exists anymore in the USA for any child... Other countries may be more likely to still have that kind of circumstance perhaps...

And more wealth seems to only make it worse -- see for example:
"The Problem With Rich Kids"
https://www.psychologytoday.co...
"In a surprising switch, the offspring of the affluent today are more distressed than other youth. They show disturbingly high rates of substance use, depression, anxiety, eating disorders, cheating, and stealing. It gives a whole new meaning to having it all."

"The Culture of Affluence: Psychological Costs of Material Wealth"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
"Evolutionary psychologists have suggested, furthermore, that wealthy communities can, paradoxically, be among those most likely to engender feelings of friendlessness and isolation in their inhabitants. As Tooby and Cosmides (1996) argued, the most reliable evidence of genuine friendship is that of help offered during times of dire need: People tend never to forget the sacrifices of those who provide help during their darkest hours. Modern living conditions, however, present relatively few threats to physical well-being. Medical science has reduced several sources of disease, many hostile forces of nature have been controlled, and laws and police forces deter assault and murder. Ironically, therefore, the greater the availability of amenities of modern living in a community, the fewer are the occurrences of critical events that indicate to people which of their friends are truly engaged in their welfare and which are only fair-weather companions. This lack of critical assessment events, in turn, engenders lingering mistrustfulness despite the presence of apparently warm interactions (Tooby & Cosmides, 1996). ...
Physical characteristics of wealthy suburban communities may also contribute to feelings of isolation. Houses in these communities are often set far apart with privacy of all ensured by long driveways, high hedges, and sprawling lawns (Weitzman, 2000; Wilson-Doenges, 2000). Neighbors are unlikely to casually bump into each other as they come and go in their communities, and children are unlikely to play on street corners. Paradoxically, once again, it is possible that the wealthiest neighborhoods are among the most vulnerable to low levels of cohesiveness and efficacy (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). When encountering an errant, disruptive child of the millionaire acquaintance next door, neighbors tend to be reluctant to intervene not only because of respect for others' privacy but also, more pragmatically, because of fears of litigation (e.g., Warner, 1991)."

It used to be we lived in tribes and then still close-knit communities...

Daniel Quinn proposes we try to go back to that way of life:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"New tribalists believe that the tribal model, though not absolutely "perfect," has obviously stood the test of time as the most successful social organization for humans, in alignment with natural selection (just as well as the hive model for bees, the pod model for whales, and the pack model for wolves). According to new tribalists, the tribe fulfills both an emotionally and organizationally stabilizing role in human li

So, you *do* want things.

I want the nation to continue to exist. Without military and police it will not exist, therefore, military and police are necessary. Moreover, there can not, unfortunately, be a competition among different groups of armed people, so they must be under a single command — this is why I'm willing to hold my nose and accept the government doing both.

Space exploration is not required for a nation to exist. Nor are social programs. If, heaven forfend, all of the six thousand homeless of San Francisco die tomorrow, the city will not be any worse off. Moreover, provision of these folks with food and shelter can be accomplished by competing charities. Therefore, it must not be done by the government. A clear cut rule, easy to apply and understand.

So if a commie socialist program reduces more crime per dollar spent than spending it on police, you'd be in favour of that? I suspect not.

Your suspicion is correct — because socialist programs do not reduce "more crime per dollar". Not at all. The total cost of crime in the US is about $200 bln/year. The annual cost of the "War on Poverty" meanwhile costs four times that — only a tiny fraction of that stemming from the above-mentioned military.

So, if we eliminate the "War on Poverty" altogether — thus saving about $750 billion/year — and the crime so much as doubles we'd still be saving about $350 bln a year. But, of course, it will not double — because it didn't half, under Lyndon Jonson, who saddled us with this burden — so the actual savings will be much greater.

No, help for the poor can not be justified by efficiency of crime-fighting — indeed, it never was the justification. The government's benevolent and omniscient saints — including the current President — have always appealed to the taxpayers' compassion and charity. Sentiments, that are not compatible with monies being confiscated at gun-point, which is how the taxes are collected.

but now it has no government so free market pixes

Thanks to its Socialist past, it has no law and order either — which are required for a free market to do its magic.

But, so long as we are giving each other relocation advice, maybe, it is you, who should consider moving? North Korea — the worker's paradise — provides its happy citizens with free everything and has a wonderful space-exploration program too. And the glorious Rays of Chuch'e shine on everyone!

and only care about profits. This is more proof of that.

Doctors = legalized crack dealers

You wouldn't say most patients then are "legalized crackheads", would you? So why then, since most doctors don't give pain medicine to make money (see below) like a crack dealer, nor do doctors give pain medications because they know a large portion (most don't) will become addicts like crack dealers, would you say that about doctors?

There is also a bit of cultural shift - some of it driven by the pharmaceutical industry pushing "pain free" and away from the thought process of our grandparents that some aches and pains were just associated with "growing old". I see many elderly patients with "plain" old osteoarthritis because they tell their docs their knees hurt or hips hurt. Some of it driven by the 5th vital since, Joint Commission, and your doctors "patient satisfaction survey" (HCAHPS):

(1) Did you need medicine for pain?

(2) How often was your pain well-controlled?

(3) How often did the hospital staff do everything they could to help with your pain?

It's a perverse goal. I probably can get your pain to zero. You might end up a drooling heap of drowsiness, but it will be an incoherent zero when I ask what your pain score is....This perverse goal has incentivized over treatment and allowed for much abuse by a small number of patients, some of whom are abusing the system for profit or to get high, and by those with, essentially unrealistic expectations - for some people pain is not zero even when they are in a drooling heap of slumber. Any docs will tell you stories of patients admitted for "pain crisis" who are seriously sawing some logs, dead asleep, literally need to be shaken to be awoken and when asked will still claim their pain score is 10/10 or, even better 20/10 or 50/10...... *sigh*

Most of us come to work everyday to alleviate some suffering and misery. Cure, treat or ameliorate disease. There is no nefarious conspiracy to turn people into addicts. Here are the real factors....and this is by no means an exhaustive list

The association between chronic pain and obesity

Association of body mass index with symptom severity and quality of life in patients with fibromyalgia

Depression and chronic pain

Depression and pain

Pain and Depression: A Neurobiological Perspective of Their Relationship

Back Pain and Obesity

and only care about profits. This is more proof of that.

Doctors = legalized crack dealers

You wouldn't say most patients then are "legalized crackheads", would you? So why then, since most doctors don't give pain medicine to make money (see below) like a crack dealer, nor do doctors give pain medications because they know a large portion (most don't) will become addicts like crack dealers, would you say that about doctors?

There is also a bit of cultural shift - some of it driven by the pharmaceutical industry pushing "pain free" and away from the thought process of our grandparents that some aches and pains were just associated with "growing old". I see many elderly patients with "plain" old osteoarthritis because they tell their docs their knees hurt or hips hurt. Some of it driven by the 5th vital since, Joint Commission, and your doctors "patient satisfaction survey" (HCAHPS):

(1) Did you need medicine for pain?

(2) How often was your pain well-controlled?

(3) How often did the hospital staff do everything they could to help with your pain?

It's a perverse goal. I probably can get your pain to zero. You might end up a drooling heap of drowsiness, but it will be an incoherent zero when I ask what your pain score is....This perverse goal has incentivized over treatment and allowed for much abuse by a small number of patients, some of whom are abusing the system for profit or to get high, and by those with, essentially unrealistic expectations - for some people pain is not zero even when they are in a drooling heap of slumber. Any docs will tell you stories of patients admitted for "pain crisis" who are seriously sawing some logs, dead asleep, literally need to be shaken to be awoken and when asked will still claim their pain score is 10/10 or, even better 20/10 or 50/10...... *sigh*

Most of us come to work everyday to alleviate some suffering and misery. Cure, treat or ameliorate disease. There is no nefarious conspiracy to turn people into addicts. Here are the real factors....and this is by no means an exhaustive list

The association between chronic pain and obesity

Association of body mass index with symptom severity and quality of life in patients with fibromyalgia

Depression and chronic pain

Depression and pain

Pain and Depression: A Neurobiological Perspective of Their Relationship

Back Pain and Obesity

Look, you are the one who started in with the "you aren't very good at this are you?" comments. Or was that supposed to add value to the discussion? Clearly you are not as good at it as you thought, and the Dunning Kruger effect was quite evident. Then you decided to go after my use of the term arbitrary, when in fact that was the correct word to use. Much of what you said was not adding value to the discussion. And you know that the idea of making all clocks auto-synchronize just isn't going to happen any time soon. So we are back to the usefulness of a 1 hour, arbitrary, time shift twice a year. As a biologist who started out in circadian biology: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... I find DST to be very arbitrary and counterproductive considering it even leads to increased heart attacks and traffic accidents. But crudely matching sine waves is so cool! Right?

Last year non-profits and private businesses invested 2.3 BILLION dollars to basic research. Source: http://www.sciencephilanthropy... Also, an economist recently did an inflation-adjusted comparison of basic RND expenditures before and after 1960's (when American government got REALLY into Science expenditures) guess what? We had MORE money being spent on RND before the government got involved than we did 50 years later. Source: https://www.amazon.com/gp/prod...

So companies DO spend money on basic research and there is evidence that they spent more in the past than they did once government got involved. This actually makes a lot of sense. If i was running a company that built nuclear reactors, and I was considering investing in fusion tomahawk reactors, but then read in the newspaper that the Government was investing 2.5 billion into fusion reactors, why would i "waste" my precious RnD money if the government is already doing it? In fact, the worst case scenario from such a hypothetical is because of political influences, the government spends the 2.5 billion not on a fusion reactor most likely to succeed, but a less promising model, being proposed by a CEO that's golf buddies with a few senators. After 2.5 billion dollars and 4 years the research program has dismal results, and because of that, no nuclear reactor companies will invest in fusion research for another 10 years.

as for the folks at the NIH, i'm personally not a fan due to the fact that they have been stonewalling medical cannabis research for years, and funded junk science to try and prove that cannabis, ecstasy, and psilosybin mushrooms cause brain damage/schizophrenia. I will quote my source directly on why the NIH research is only 12.5% useful:

For every 100 research projects, only half lead to published findings. Of those 50, half have significant design flaws, making their results unreliable. And of those 25, half are redundant or unnecessary because of previous work. That’s how you get to 12.5 percent. Source: https://nihrecord.nih.gov/news...

Uhh... no. I do not serve the military. I am extremely anti-war. My opposition to the State Department is I see it as an extension of the Neo-Cons (you know, the group that controlled George Bush and pursued military intervention in Iraq?) I equate "State Department " with "War Department" or the "Department of promising money to countries that do what we want, and threatening military action against those who don't" And though i am NOT A TRUMP SUPPORTER, i am very mad at the state departments attempts to thwart his negotiations for peace with Russia [this is my personal interpretation of recent events, yours may be different, reporting on this issue has been dismal from both mainstream and underground press]

I do not like the knee-jerk reaction to call myself ignorant. People are exposed to wildly different information sources, philosophies, and editorial opinions throughout their lives. I believe my opinions are founded on a solid ground of research, i have just been exposed to different information sources, philosophies , and interpretations of recent events than you have.

Perhaps it's because talking too much isn't really a desirable attribute in this field?

Out of interest, is forming misplaced opinions from debunked "facts" a hobby of yours, or do you do it professionally?

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

I am saying that it's rational, when denied of living, to try to kill and steal to get it.

Oh, this is awesome! So, refusing to buy something — such as labor — from you justifies theft and even murder, in your opinion? This is the only interpretation of the quoted sentence, that makes sense in the context of the employment-discrimination...

I know that libertarians think that somalia is an utopia

No, we don't. This is a stupid meme invented by Illiberal morons, who project their own flaws on others and fail to recognize assholes of their own kind. Somalia was a Collectivist "paradise" — and that is, what lead to its current state. The path, I might add, Venezuela — a darling of Socialists world-wide — is now walking down on as well.

prefer to actually have a society where everyone can survive, even without working

If you wish to support those, who can not support themselves, you are welcome to share your own earnings with them. But there is no moral/ethical justification to compel the rest of us — at the government's gun-point, which is how taxes are collected — to help anyone.

Whether they are destitute through no fault of their own or otherwise, the rest of us do not owe them anything. You can appeal to us to help those, you deem worthy of helping, but you must not be able to force us.

rather than face a much higher level of crime.

Ah! So it is not the benevolence, that drives you to help others out, but simply fear of criminals? Nice, for a second there I thought, I'm talking to Mother Theresa (reincarnated). Well, here are some numbers for you... The total cost of crime in the US is about $200 bln/year. The annual cost of the "War on Poverty" is four times that. So, if we eliminate those expenditures entirely — and the crime-levels as much triple, we'd still be saving a few hundred billion dollars a year.

That said, this has nothing to do with discrimination — real or imagined — so let's not get sidetracked.

Is it really wrong to call you a nazi at this point?

National Socialist? You really are in denial about your own self. Those Collectivists also — like you — worshiped the State and expected it to provide them with everything: Education, Healthcare, Pensions... Unlike Socialists — of all stripes — Libertarians advocate for the Individual, however cantankerous, above the Collective, however Glorious.

So far, we've established, that you are a Socialist and that you approve of killing, when people don't want to hire you or otherwise supply you with "living". If you want to see a Nazi, look into a mirror...

Exactly. People don't understand that they already eat meat from animals injected with steroids, hormones, and antibiotics, raised in conditions full of filth and diseases. For those being afraid of cancer here is something to read if they have time: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... Don't even try to convince someone on the internet that red meat is already a major contributor to various diseases, everyone has to do their own research. I will eat lab grown meat if the taste is ok and the price is right. I would even eat insects if they are grown properly. Farming as we know it is not sustainable in a long run.

Stop saying a national healthcare system is a free healthcare system. It isn't. Healthcare is not a right that governments can simply dole out and it should never have been. If you need medical care, then you should pay for it out of your own pocket or through an employer-based insurance system, not because government mandates it. Not to mention we've seen what a single payer government mandate system in the US looks like, look no further than the VA system. A sheer and total failure. Socialized healthcare is a joke and should be abandoned at all costs. Even Canadians are fed up with it, but put up with it because Canada has basically made the private health insurance system illegal. Links as an example. So disabuse yourself that healthcare should be another job and entitlement for the government to give you. For crying out loud, do you not see what you are advocating is tantamount to perpetual servitude if not outright slavery? And for what? https://www.city-journal.org/h... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

I think back to a study done on the effects of legalizing prostitution on sex trafficking.

A very interesting topic in itself, but so different from the above. Those sort of studies are usually worthless, as they are structured in a way that will always find correlations, but can never succeed in controlling for related factors.

It sounds like you are suggesting that decriminalising CP possession will increase consumption, and therefore somehow increase child abuse.

There is a similar old argument against mainstream pornography, but the evidence against it is strong. Porn does not cause rape.

Is good for the gander. In other words, will our elected representatives consent to genetic screening? I, for one, would like to see their Î4 stats made available for analysis.

There has been a proof-of-concept for synthesizing opioids with genetically modified yeast.

we engineered yeast to produce the selected opioid compounds thebaine and hydrocodone starting from sugar. All work was conducted in a laboratory that is permitted and secured for work with controlled substances. We combined enzyme discovery, enzyme engineering, and pathway and strain optimization to realize full opiate biosynthesis in yeast. The resulting opioid biosynthesis strains required expression of 21 (thebaine) and 23 (hydrocodone) enzyme activities from plants, mammals, bacteria, and yeast itself. This is a proof-of-principle, and major hurdles remain before optimization and scale up could be achieved. Open discussions of options for governing this technology are also needed in order to responsibly realize alternative supplies for these medically relevant compounds.

If implemented successfully on a large scale, what are the consequences for traditional opium farmers from already poor regions?

Well, I figured I'd google to see. So I checked "Is IQ genetically linked?. The top three links at this time of posting are:

(1): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ : (relevant snippet) "The general figure for the heritability of IQ, according to an authoritative American Psychological Association report, is 0.45 for children, and rises to around 0.75 for late teens and adults.[5][6] The heritability of IQ increases with age and reaches an asymptote at 18â"20 years of age and continues at that level well into adulthood.[7] Recent studies suggest that family and parenting characteristics are not significant contributors to variation in IQ scores;[8] however, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease can have deleterious effects.[9][10]"

[7]: Bouchard, Thomas J. (2013). "The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age". Twin Research and Human Genetics. 16 (05): 923â"930. doi:10.1017/thg.2013.54. ISSN 1832-4274. PMID 23919982.

[8]: Beaver, KM. (2014). "A closer look at the role of parenting-related influences on verbal intelligence over the life course: Results from an adoption-based research design.". Intelligence. 46: 179â"187. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2014.06.002.

[9]: Eppig, C. (2010). "Parasite prevalence and the worldwide distribution of cognitive ability". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences. 277 (1701): 3801â"3808. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.0973. PMC 2992705Freely accessible. PMID 20591860.

[10]: Daniele, V. (2013). "The burden of disease and the IQ of nations". Learning and Individual Differences. 28: 109â"118. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.09.015.


(2) https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/intelligence "Is intelligence determined by genetics?" (relevant huge chunk) "Researchers have conducted many studies to look for genes that influence intelligence. Many of these studies have focused on similarities and differences in IQ within families, particularly looking at adopted children and twins. These studies suggest that genetic factors underlie about 50 percent of the difference in intelligence among individuals. Other studies have examined variations across the entire genomes of many people (an approach called genome-wide association studies or GWAS) to determine whether any specific areas of the genome are associated with IQ. These studies have not conclusively identified any genes that underlie differences in intelligence. It is likely that a large number of genes are involved, each of which makes only a small contribution to a personâ(TM)s intelligence."

"Intelligence is also strongly influenced by the environment. Factors related to a childâ(TM)s home environment and parenting, education and availability of learning resources, and nutrition, among others, all contribute to intelligence. A personâ(TM)s environment and genes influence each other, and it can be challenging to tease apart the effects of the environment from those of genetics. For example, if a childâ(TM)s IQ is similar to that of his or her parents, is that similarity due to genetic factors passed down from parent to child, to shared environmental factors, or (most likely) to a combination of both? It is clear that both environmental and genetic factors play a part in determining intelligence."


(3) http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/genes-dont-just-influence-your-iq-they-determine-how-well-you-do-school (relevant snippets) " A new study of more than 6000 pairs of twins finds that academic achievement is influenced by genes affecting motivation, personality, confidence, and dozens of other traits, in addition to those that shape intelligence"

"In all, about 62% of the individual differences in acade

A recent New Zealand study found that the risks of death from second hand smoke is between the risk of getting melanoma and dying in a car crash.

So unless you want to start banning cars and going out in the sun, STFU about casual second hand smoke. Walking through that cloud on your way into the restaurant isn't as dangerous as driving to get there. I'm not suggestion people should take steps on their own to avoid it or not expose their children to it, but enough is enough from the nanny state governments of the world.

Smoking does not cause cancer, lung disease or other ailments. It increases the risk that someone will get them. Just as driving does not cause automobile crashes, it just increases the risk of having one.

Free market economics views reduced productivity as an inefficiency, and tries to get rid of it (actually it simply offers greater rewards for higher-productivity activity, which has the side-effect of strangling low-productivity activity).

The point of the article and this concept in general is that 'employing a person' and 'being a low-productivity activity' are becoming the same thing.

We have two potential futures: one Star Trek-like utopia where goods are too cheap to sell. And another much like Feudal Japan or Europe where the starving poor shamble past giant glorious castles protecting horded valuables from the frequent rioting outside their walls.

Markets only pick prices for things, not values for things. If you can do things that raise the price far beyond the value - like monopoly pricing or protection rackets or bribery - then that's perfectly permitted under a free market. But we need to correctly value things - like public education or infrastructure and not just cost them.

During the feudal periods of societies there was no shortage of fancy things offered to the nobles while the peasants starved. Value and price becomes completely disconnected. Once you are one of the rich you no need to care about if people can buy your stuff. Price is no longer a consideration for things you want. As long as your "values markers" are intact other rich and the poor masses will continue to feed your appetites while your neighbors starve. (This relative-wealth-makes-me-better concept might be a defect built into the human society.)

Additionally, simple Economics 101 theories like free markets run smack into the face of 'F-you money' and 'needful things.' Rich people literally cannot spend their wealth. That is kind of the definition. So the rich buy 'needful things' that they want, not necessarily things that have positive economic effects.

because only a government can deprive people of freedom to make their own economic decisions.

Laws don't come from nowhere. The non-working ultra wealthy, the old money, are sources of economic inefficiency that self-reinforce. These "haves" buy things like bad laws to protect themselves. California's housing situation is an example: laws to prevent the 'free' market operating were just another item in the 'free' market to buy, another cost of business.

'F-you money' is the same destroyer of free markets but at the other end of the spectrum. This is not the same as the very low 'survival' level pay governments are playing with to prevent homelessness and destitution. This is equivalent to early retirement. The idea is to get out of the rat race.

But a modern Protestant and God-fearing economy can't have too many people walking around not doing anything productive. People with free time might have the time to think or vote or do something actually effective. In particular, thinking people are dangerous when the path to easy riches depends on scamming people with false dreams.

That's why historically in developed nations, the rich have gotten richer, and the poor have also gotten richer

That's only true for a very exceptional and brief period after World War II, one which ended with the government 'un' reforms of the 1970s in developed countries. Usually the only way the poor got richer was when a cataclysm - war, famine or disease - eliminated much of the wo

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

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

Yeah, then do the same with booze. Wow, how come nobody has thought of this before? We'll be so healthy!

Alcohol taxes reduce consumption and reduce incidents of drunk driving. There is no reason to believe that a "sugar tax" wouldn't also reduce consumption. Mexico has a "soda tax" and has seen a decline in soda consumption. A 10% tax resulted in a 6% decrease in consumption.

True, with the longer life expectancy we have to pay out more in old age pensions compared to America, assuming the same retirement ages.
Here's a chart showing how America was falling behind the developed world though it's pre-Obama. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/b...
And the usual wiki entry, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

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

Appropriate energy intake for critically ill mechanically respirated patients ~1900kcal/day. That is adjusted for the body weights etc.

https://health.gov/dietaryguid...

Shows that 1000kcal is appropriate for a sedentary 3 year old, 2400kcal for an average 18 year male and 2000kcal for average 18 year female. That is for moderately active people, sedentary people need less and those with high activity need more.

No wonder I wax hungry all the time on the 1,200 calorie diets they put me on as a teenager!

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

Appropriate energy intake for critically ill mechanically respirated patients ~1900kcal/day. That is adjusted for the body weights etc.

https://health.gov/dietaryguid...

Shows that 1000kcal is appropriate for a sedentary 3 year old, 2400kcal for an average 18 year male and 2000kcal for average 18 year female. That is for moderately active people, sedentary people need less and those with high activity need more.

From the article, it seems like people are trying to write things in a way to make them prettier... and less accurate. Quote: "The trouble is that gives you a rose-tinted view of the evidence because the results that get published tend to be the most interesting, the most exciting, novel, eye-catching, unexpected results. "

This is slightly on topic... take the wording from wikipedia that seems to be designed to appeal to the masses and probably has misinformation (looks like big pharmacy got their hands in this entry, phobia of skin thinning is mostly unfounded?) and then the words from an Indian dermatology website with lots of actual biology verbiage and sure seems to support the fact that steroid use for your skin is bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Indian Journal of Dermatology:

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

Random thing I found about scientists having problems with bad wikipedia entries:

http://www.raysahelian.com/wik...

Toxoplasmosis infection makes rats lose their fear of cats. Beneficial to both the toxo and the hungry cats:
http://www.nature.com/news/par...

Toxo in people is associated with traffic accidents... slow reflexes? Lack of fear? Distracted by cat? Probably not psychosis, though:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Dateline did a show about a missing woman who recklessly invited many dangerous men into her life, ignoring all the red flags her friends were trying to get her to see. She was a cat lady, too...

Glass is an amorphous solid that is porous if you look under an electron microscope. It slowly dissolves in water (very slowly) and therefore continuously leaches whatever compounds it is composed of. It probably wouldn't be a big problem for local water if you dumped a few big CRT TVs here and there, but if you put a mountain of it somewhere and let it leach into the soil, it could get into the local groundwater. Look, if we want capitalism to survive and not destroy us and the planet while people are making a buck, we need to clean up after ourselves. You don't crap on the living room rug.

Here is my lab's journal article on glass leaching:

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

Strains of bacteria defective for DNA repair enzymes have been used for years to accelerate lab studies of antibiotic resistance. There are even mutator strains of staph aureus that have been used for studies like this.

Voices” (auditory hallucinations) are the most common type of hallucination in schizophrenia. Many people with the disorder hear voices. The voices can either be internal, seeming to come from within one’s own mind, or they can be external, in which case they can seem to be as real as another person speaking.

This post brought to you by the "Department of Pot Kettle Black" :-)